The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.

THE THIRD PART of the originall of Poperie; with the successiue Increments thereof, and an eui∣dent confutation of the same. (Book 3)

The first Chapter, containing certaine Preludes, no lesse necessarie for the intelligence of the Chapters folow∣ing, then for the exact discouerie of long hidden Po∣perie.

The first Prelude.

POpery was not hatched al on one day, moneth, or yeere, but crept into the church by little and little: and that bi∣cause the late bishops of Rome, were not Lines, Clements, and Syluesters;* 1.1 but naughtie and most wicked men. For so saieth their owne deare frier and great schooleman, Franciscus a Victoria. Yea, some of them beganne as foxes, continued as wolues, and ended as dogges. This to bee so,* 1.2 will witnesse with me Bartholomaeus Carranza their learned dominican doctor. Yea Irenaeus, who liued within 200. yeres of Christ, a∣uoucheth, that before his time, ignorance and negligence had brought many abuses into the Church. And what may wee thinke then of abuses in our dayes? Reade his wordes, apud Eusebium, histor. lib. 5, cap. 24.

The second Prelude.

* 1.3MAny things may euidently be proued to haue beene done, whereof for all that wee can yeeld no sound reason, when, where, & by whom they were done. For first, we know which the Papists can not denie, that in the primitiue church infants receiued the holy communion; yet neither we nor they can tel, when, where, and by whom, that vndiscreet custom first began & was abolished: it was usually practised in S. Austines time. Secondly, we know & they know, that the Lords supper in the Romish church is ministred vnder one kind contrary to Christs institution, yet neither we nor they can tel, when, where, and by whom, that execrable custom first began. Thirdly, we know & they know y^t priuat masse hath bin long practised in the church of Rome; yet can we neither tell, when, where, nor by whom it first began. But this we are assured of, that it is repugnant to Christs institution, wholy dissonant from apostolicall doctrine, and vtterly condemned by all approued antiquitie.

Fourthly, we know & they know, that their reformed Fran∣ciscans (now commonly called Capuchens) can tell right per∣fectly, that their other dissolute Franciscans haue swarued fro their ancient order, albeit they can neither tell, when, where, nor by whom, that dissolution first began: but they proue it àposteriori, by their ancient rules manifestly. And euen so doe we proue by the holy scriptures, (the true touchstone of all ve∣ritie) that the papists haue swarued from apostolicall doctrine, albeit we could not (as yet we can) assigne the time, place, and persons; when, where, & by whom such antichristian alteration began.

The third Prelude.

THe vsual practise of papists in their commentaries, bookse, and glosses, hath bin such & so intollerable in wresting the holy scriptures, as their owne deare brethren and great doc∣tours, cannot denie or conceale the same. And because this may seeme strange vnto the reader, their owne words shall beare me witnesse:* 1.4 for besides this, that Victoria confesseth their beg∣gerly and vnlearned Canonists to haue wrested the scriptures, in the behalfe and fauour of their Pope; these are the expresse words of Polidorus Ʋirgilius, their owne professed & sworne brother. Non secus isti iurisconsulti aliquoties detorquent sa∣cras

literas quó volunt, ac sutores sordidas solent dentibus ex∣tendere pelles. These popish Legists & Canonists,* 1.5 do now and then so wrest, and writhe the holy scripturs; euen as coblers do gnaw with their teeth and stretch out their filthie skinnes. Out of which words I note first, that this Polidore was a great [ 1] Papist himselfe, and so his testimony must needes be forceable against the papists. I note secondly, that he speaketh not of the meanest and worst sort of Papists, but euen of the best and of [ 2] their renowmed doctors, because he meaneth Hostiensis, their grand & famous doctor. Thirdly, that their mangling & wre∣sting [ 3] of the holy scriptures is most intolerable: & that without the same, they cannot possibly maintaine their wicked doctrine.

CHAP. II. Of the vsurped primacie in the Church of Rome.

About the yere 590. Iohn bishop of Constantinople sought by al means possible to haue y^t primacy of al other bishops,* 1.6 & for that end termed himself vniuersal bishop. This proud ap¦pellation (to be called vniuersal bishop) was so strange a thing in Christs church in those daies, that S. Gregorie surnamed y^e great, the holy & learned bishop of Rome,* 1.7 stoutly withstood I. of Constātinople, calling him antichrist, & the name antichristi∣an. And because his owne assertion plainly recited, is most able to perswade the Reader, I wil alleadge his words, which are these, Ego autem fidentèr dico quia quisquis se vniuersalem sa∣cerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua antichri∣stum praecurrit, and I speake boldly, that whosoeuer either cal∣leth himselfe vniuersall priest, or desireth so to be called, is for his intolerable pride, becom y^e precursor of antichrist: & that bi∣cause in his proud conceit, he preferres himself before al other.

This notwithstanding, Bonifacius the bishop of Rome and third of that name,* 1.8 obtained of the emperor Phocas to be cal∣led the chief of al bishops, and that Rome should be the head of all Churches: for so soone as Boniface had inuaded Peters seate, (which was about 607. yeares after Christ,) and had with much adoe obtained of the bloudy and cruell tyrant Pho∣cas, (who rauished many vertuous matrones,* 1.9 and murde∣red the good Emperour Mauritius with his wife and chil∣dren,) that Rome shoulde bee called the head of all churches,

euen then, euen then doubles, the beast of the reuelation, began to prepare the way for Antichrist.* 1.10 This point is so euident, as their owne zealous papists, & renowmed chronographers, Si∣gebertus, Palmerius, Platina, Bergomensis, Polydorus, and o∣thers, are enforced to confesse the same. And for the better sa∣tisfaction of the reader, I will alledge their owne wordes. Thus therfore writeth their owne learned and beloued monke Marianus Scotus; Hic impetrauit à Phoca Caesare, vt sedes apo∣stolica Romanae caput esset ecclesiae, quum antea Constantinopo∣lis primum omnium se scribebat. This Bonifacius obtained of Phocas the emperour, that the apostolike sea of Rome should be the head of the church,* 1.11 when before Constantinople wrote her selfe the chiefe of all.

Sigebertus Gemblacensis an other of their monkes, writeth in this expresse maner: Post quem Bonifacius Romanae ecclesiae praesidet.* 1.12 Hic obtinuit apud Phocam imperatorem, vt ecclesiae Romana caput esset omnium ecclesiarum, quia ecclesia Constanti∣nopolitana scribebat se esse primam omnium ecclesiarum. After whom, Bonifacius gouerned the church of Rome: and he ob∣tained of the emperor Phocas, that the church of Rome should be the head of all churches; and that because the church of Con∣stantinople wrote it selfe the head of all churches.* 1.13 Palmerius hath these words; consentiente Phoca institutum fuit, vt ecclesia Romanae caput esset ecclesiarum omnium, cum prius Constantino∣politana id vsurpare tentasset. It was ordained by the consent of Phocas, that the Church of Rome should be the head of all churches, whereas the church of all Constantinople, had be∣fore vsurped that dignitie. The other writers haue wordes of like force, which I omit for breuitie sake. Peruse Martinus, Polonus, and Philippus Bergomensis, who both teach the same doctrine.

The first obiection.

Phocas did not giue the primacie to the church of Rome, but only declared by his decree, that authoritie which of right pertaineth to the same.

The answere.

* 1.14I answere, that neither Scripture, councell, nor any authen∣ticall

w••iter can be alledged; who before the said constitution of Phocas, did at any time ascribe the headship and vniuersall gouernment of all Churches, to the Church of Rome.* 1.15 For first, S. Policarpus woulde not yeeld to Anicetus bishop of Rome, in the cōtrouersie about Easter, as witnesseth Eusebius. Secondly, Irenaeus and other bishops of Fraunce, reprooued [ 2] Victor the bishop of Rome very sharply, bidding him to haue respect to peace and vnitie of the church. Thirdly, Polycrates and many bishops of Asia did stoutly withstand Victor, in his [ 3] proceedings touching Easter. Fourthly,* 1.16 S. Cyprian roūdly op∣posed himselfe against Stephanus the bishop of Rome, contem∣ned [ 4] his decree, and derided his reasons. Fiftly, the Apostles at [ 5] Hierusalem sent Peter and Iohn,* 1.17 to confirme the faithfull in Samaria. And consequently, if the pope be not aboue Peter, he may be sent as an inferiour, or at least as an equall,* 1.18 euen as Peter was. Sixtly, the fathers of the Affrican councell, would not yeeld to Celestine the bishop of Rome, in the controuersie [ 6] of appeales, concerning Appiarius.* 1.19 And when pope Celestine alledged, that the counsell of Nice gaue libertie to appeale to Rome; the fathers of the councell answered, that the true co∣pies of the decree were otherwise. Seuenthly, the famous ge∣nerall councell of Chalcedon, gaue the bishop of Constantino∣ple [ 7] equall authoritie with the bishop of Rome, in all ecclesiasti∣call affaires. Eightly, the Councel of Nice prescribed limites, aswel to the bishop of Rome as to other Patriarkes. Hereby [ 8] then is it euident, that the lordly vsurped primacie of the church of Rome, was only giuen by the cruell tyrant Phocas.* 1.20 Which conclusion is prooued more at large, in the sixt chapter of my second booke of Motiues.

The second obiection.

You are not able to name the pope and time, that first swar∣••ed from the doctrine of his auncestors.

The answere.

I say first, that many thinges haue bin done in your church, which your selues can neuer proue, when, where, & by whō they

were done: this is euident by the 2. Prelude and 1. chapter of this third and last part. I say secondly, that Pope Boniface the third of that name, did degenerate from Gregorie his pre∣decessor, as is alreadie proued. I say thirdly, that the absurdi∣tie of this obiection shal be discouered, throughout the chapters following.

The third obiection.

You confesse in your Motiues, that in the church of Rome for many yeares together, were sundrie learned and godly bi∣shops, who liued orderly, preached the word of God sincerely, and fed their flockes carefully: but wee are able to shew a law∣full succession of our Bishops, euen from saint Peter to him that now sitteth in his chaire. And therefore granting the for∣mer, you seeme impudent to denie the latter.

The answere.

I answer, that the succession of your Romish bishops is not so certaine,* 1.21 as yee would beare the worlde in hand it is. For first, many graue and learned writers do varie exceedingly, in setting downe that succession wherein you so glory. S. Cle∣ment (whose epistles the papists magnifie when they seeme to make for their purpose) testifying for himselfe,* 1.22 that S. Peter appointed him to be his successor. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Euse∣bius, and the canon of the popish masse, doe all with vniforme consent, place Linus, and Cletus, before the said Clemens; yet So∣phronius, Met••phrastes, and the Popish Pontifical that cannot lie, affirme roundly, that Saint Peter liued after Linus.

Secondly, many schismes haue bin in the church of Rome, and amongst our romish bishops,* 1.23 euen for many yeares toge∣ther: so that the succession of the latter, can neuer bee proued constantly, to haue descended without interruption from the former. Their owne Onuphrius Panuinius, reckoneth vppe thirtie schismes in the church of Rome, but I will content my selfe with two onely,* 1.24 whereof their owne deare frier Bartho∣lomeus Carranza can instruct them sufficiently. The former schisme endured for the space of 64. yeares,* 1.25 during which time, their godly popedome was at Auinion in France, and not one onely day at Rome, though at Rome (as they prate) God placed their holy seate. In the latter schisme of the twaine re∣hearsed,

three of their holy bishops were popes at one & the self same time, to wit, Iohannes the foure & twentie of that name, Benedictus the thirteenth, and Gregorie the twelfte. From which three striuing and grinning as dogs for a bone, I wold learne howe they can deriue, their holy so supposed succes∣sion.

Thirdly, a woman as Saint Paul teacheth vs,* 1.26 is not capa∣ble of ecclesiasticall function. And so the succession deriued from our holy mistris Iohn pope, cannot possibly be of force:* 1.27 which storie of Pope Iohn the woman if it be true, let the Pa∣pists for euer holde their peace, and bragge no longer of their succession. And that the said storie of their woman pope Iohn is true indeede, I will proue by the testimonie of such writers, as the Papists hitherto haue euer thought well of,* 1.28 and repu∣ted for their owne: that is, by Sigebertus, Marianus Scotus, Palmerius, Martinus Polonus; Phillippus Bergomensis, Bapt. Platina, and Bartholomeus Carranza. For all these sing one and the selfe same song, that pope Iohn was a woman though not an holy nunne.

The first replie.

These writers liued long after Pope Iohn, and therefore knew they nothing but by report of others.

The answere.

I say first, that these seauen writers liued longer one after another, then Sigebertus and Scotus liued after Pope Iohn. [ 1] I say secondly, that all Historiographers write for the most part, by the report of others. I say thirdly, that so many wri∣ters [ 2] otherwise of good credit with you, may well bee credited of vs, in a matter concerning your owne proceedings, especial∣ly, [ 3] since sundry of them be your owne holy friers. I say fourth∣lie, that this storie of Pope Iohn is publikelie painted, and [ 4] this daie to bee seene in your owne Cathedrall churches of

Syenna. Which painting our newly hatched Iesuites, sought earnestly to haue had defaced, in the late repairing of that church; but the bishop would not suffer them to preuaile. I say fiftly, that these seuen writers who were all papists, and liued [ 5] so long one after another; would neuer haue published one and the selfe same thing to the world, if any one of them could in his life time, haue learned the contrary to be the trueth.

The 2. replie.

They say onely and barely, vt ferunt, as men say. And other graue writers that liued before them all, and neerer the time of pope Iohn, make no mention thereof.

The answere.

I say first, that to reason ab auctoritate negatiue, is not hol∣den [ 1] good in schooles, and your selues doe often condemne in o∣thers, that kinde of disputation. I say secondly, that if these [ 2] writers had not been perswaded of the trueth of the storie, they would neuer haue published it to the worlde; because it maketh so much against Romish Religion, to which they were addic∣ted whollie. I say thirdly, that the said authors write of this [ 3] matter, euen as they doe of other thinges. Palmerius and Sege∣bertus both haue these expresse wordes;* 1.29 Fama est hunc Iohannē faeminam fuisse, & vni soli familiaritantum cognitam, qui eam complexus est, & grauis facta peperit papa existens. Quare eam inter pontifices non numerant quidam, ideo nomini numerū non facit. The report is, that this Iohn was a woman, and knowne onely to one that was her familiar friend. By whose familiaritie she became with childe, and was deliuered euen while she was pope (of Rome.) For which cause some doe not reckon her amongst the popes, and so shee maketh not vp the number. Marianus, Polonus, Bergomensis, Platina and Car∣ranza alreadie named, teach the same doctrine, writing vpon the same Iohn. And note wel, that M. Scotus affirmeth the sto∣rie constantly, without al ands or ifs. And so doth also M. Po∣lonus, who was the popes owne penitentiarie. To these I may fitly adde,* 1.30 that which your L. Abbot Bernard saith; the beast (saith he) mentioned in the reuelation, to whom was giuen a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make warres with

the Saintes, sitteth in Peters chaire. His wordes are cited verbatim, in the preface to my booke of Motiues.

The third replie.

S. Austen auoucheth plainly,* 1.31 that the succession of the Bi∣shops of Rome, was one of the chiefest motiues, that kept him in the catholicke church.

The answere.

I answere that succession is of two sorts, materiall and for∣mall. Materiall is the succession of persons, one after another in the same place. Formall is the succession of persons, one af∣ter another in the same doctrine in what place soeuer. Now S. Austen in deede writing against the Manichies, saith that suc∣cession of priestes from S. Peters seate, kept him in the vnitie of the church. And no maruell, because the Bishops of Rome vntill the daies of S. Austen and long after; were verie god∣ly men, and taught the same doctrine, that S. Peter had done before them: and so they ioyned succession formall with mate∣riall; which if the bishops of Rome would this day performe, all godly christians would now ioyne with them,* 1.32 as S Austen did in his time. For as S. Irene saith; wee ought to obey those priestes, that with succession keepe the word of trueth.

The third obiection.

S. Paule saith plainly, that there must be bishops and pa∣stors in the church, euen vntill the worlds end.* 1.33 Whereupon it followeth, that you protestantes haue no church at all. For be∣fore Luther departed from vs, all bishops and priestes for ma∣ny yeares togither (as your selues can neuer denie) imbraced our Romish religion. This obiection doth so gall you all, as ye cannot tell in the world, what answere to frame thereunto.

The answere.

Gentle wordes I pray you,* 1.34 the matter is not so daun∣gerous

as ye thinke. I therefore say first with saint Paul, that [ 1] pastors and doctors haue euer been in the church since Christs ascension, are at this present, and shall bee vnto the worldes end. I say secondly, that albeit the visible church cannot want [ 2] materiall succession; yet cannot that succession, without for∣mall, yeelde anie sound argument of true faith and religion. In regard hereof, your owne doctor Nicolaus de Lyra, after he hath told vs that many Popes haue swarued from the chri∣stian faith, and become flat apostataes, concludeth in these wordes,* 1.35 Propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis, in qui∣bus est notitia vera, & confessio fidei, & veritatis. by reason whereof the church consisteth in those persons, in whome there is true kn••wledge and confession of the faith and of veritie. So then by the confession of your owne approoued doctor, not they that sic in saint Peters chaire at Rome, are the true and lawfull successors of Saint Peter; but they that confesse and preach saint Peters doctrine. I say thirdly, that our refor∣med [ 3] churches in England, are this day able to shew, succession both materiall and formal, euen from the apostles themselues. And therefore our succession is, and ought to be reputed, farre better then yours.

The first reply.

Howsoeuer you wrangle about your formall succession, yet is it cleare to all that haue eyes; that you haue no materiall succession at all, vnlesse you tearme it materiall succession, when lay persons possesse the roomes of lawful Bishops. For I pray you (good sir) who ordered your Bishops and Priests in king Edwardes dayes? Who sent your Ministers that this day preach and minister your sacraments? Can you for shame deny that they were ordered by such as were runnagates from vs in Queene Maries time? All the world knoweth, yee can∣not doe it. And yet must you bee sent by ordinary vocation, or else confesse that you most shamefully vsurpe that holie functi∣on. For as saint Paul saith, How shall they beleeue in him, of whome they haue not heard?* 1.36 And how shall they heare with∣out a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?

The answere.

Our succession is both materiall and formall, christian and a∣postolical, as which is consonant to the holy scriptures, and to the vsual practise of the primitiue church. For first our bishops can proue their doctrine by the scriptures, and by the testimo∣nies of best approued writers, as I haue alreadie proued in my Motiues, and shall by Gods assistance proue more at large in this discourse. Secondly, our bishops haue mission and impo∣sition of hands, according to the practise apostolicall and of all approued antiquitie. Thirdly, our bishops are made in such forme and order, as they haue euer beene accustomed, a few popish, superstitious, and beggerlie ceremonies omitted, which of late yeeres had crept into the church; that is to say, be free election of the Chapiter, by consecration of the archbi∣shop, and other his associates, & by the admission of the prince.

The second replie.

S. Epiphanius inueyeth bitterly against one Zachaeus,* 1.37 who being but a ••ay man, presumed impudently to handle the holie mysterie••. And saint Ierome saieth of Hilarius the heretike, that he could neither baptize nor administer the eucharist; be∣cause he was but a deacon, when hee went out of the church. And therefore the man being dead, the sect also died with him. And what are you but deacons? Nay, what are you but meere lay men? For you are neither consecrated after the old maner, nor confirmed by the Pope; but ye are accursed long sithence, by his holie anathematismes.

The answere.

I say first, that if meere lay men should presume in our churches, to handle the holie mysteries; they could not escape condigne punishment, according to their demerites. I say se∣condly, that the want of your greasing and other your begger∣ly ceremonies, can not make the consecration of our Bishops

vnlawfull. I say thirdly, that our bishops are consecrated and [ 3] confirmed, according to the auncient maner of the primitiue church. For three thinges onely are necessarie; all which are this day (God be thanked for it) practised in the church of Eng∣land; to wit, election of the whole congregation, confirmation of the Prince, and consecration with godly praiers and imposi∣tion of handes. Of the imposition of handes, mention is made to Timothie.* 1.38 Of praiers with laying on of handes, S. Luke speaketh in the Actes. Of election by voyces of the people, S. Peter maketh relation: but of popish paltry ceremonies, I finde no where any word at all.

That election ought to be by consent of the people, S. Au∣gustine shewed plainly in a most godly and prudent epistle,* 1.39 whē in the presence of Religianus, and Martinianus, bishops, and of Saturninus, Leporius, Barnabas, Fortunatianus, Rusticus, Laza∣rus, and Eradius priestes; he humbly requested of all the people that by their consentes, Eradius might be chosen bishop after his death. I wishe the reader to peruse the whole epistle, as which is replenished with all spirituall sweetnes. But S. Cy∣prian is so plaine and copious in this point of doctrine, as who soeuer shal once reade him with iudgement, can no longer stand in doubt thereof. And that which I say of S. Cyprian in this behalfe, must also be vnderstood of Caecilius Primus, Polycar∣pus, and other bishops of Africke, assembled togither for this purpose. For the Bishops and people of Spaine wrote letters by Felix and Sabinus to the African bishops; requiring their aduise concerning the factes of Basilides and Martialis. The bishops of Africa with S. Cyprian, among other things answe∣red to the churches of Spaine in these words.

Quando ipsa (plebs) maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi:* 1.40 quod & ipsum vide∣mus de diuina authoritate descendere, vt sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idoneus public•• iudicio ac testimonio comprob••tur.

Because the people hath proper power to elect worthy priestes, or to reiect the vnworthy: which thing we see descen∣deth from Gods owne authoritie, that when the people shal be present, then the priest be chosen before all their eies, and so

be pro••ued woorthie and fit by their publique iudgement and testimonie.

Out of these wordes I note first, that the people may chuse or refuse him for their bishop, whome they like or dislike. I note [ 1] secondly, that the people haue this libertie de iure diuino gran∣ted [ 2] from God himselfe; and consequently, that it cannot be al∣tered by the power of man: which is a speciall point, wel wor∣thy the obseruation. I note thirdly, that the people must giue publique testimonie, to the election of their bishop. I note [ 3] fourthly, that all this freedome is graunted to the people, for the due triall of the life and conuersation of that person, whome [ 4] they must haue to be their bishop. Yea, this case is so cleere, that the great Papist Iacobus Pamelius is enforced to graunt,* 1.41 that this was the practise of the primitiue church, and conti∣nued many hundred yeeres, to witte, vntill saint Gregory the first of that name,* 1.42 who liued aboue fiue hundred and ninetie yeeres after the incarnation of our Lorde and Sauiour Ie∣sus Christ: and so long by Pamelius his graunt, this was the practise of the primitiue church. Yea, this practise was of force indeede, vntill our disholie father Pope Boniface the third inuaded saint Peters chaire, from whome proceeded all idolatrie.

To this Pamelius obiecteth first,* 1.43 that though the voyces of the people were required, yet did they not subscribe to the elec∣tion.

I answere, that that skilleth not, because the subscription was not anie purpose, vnlesse it had the consent of the peo∣ple.

But Pamelius replieth that the bishops were not enforced to admit whomsoeuer the people did require.* 1.44

To the which I answere, that neither were the people en∣forced to receiue, whomsoeuer the Bishops would intrude vpon them.

This practise of the ancient Church will some men say, is not this day obserued in our reformed Churches of Eng∣land.

I answere, that it is virtually obserued,* 1.45 though not for∣mally. For after the election is made by the Deane and Cha∣piter,

libertie is granted to the whole congregation, freely to declare their like or dislike, and what exception they can giue against the partie: which their freedome and liberty therein is made knowne, by letters affixed in publike place.

Now that the Bishop ought to bee confirmed by the letters patents of the Prince, and not of the Pope, which is the third and last thing to be proued, I will vnfold to the gentle reader, by three important and irrefragable reasons, grounded in the verie bowels of that selfe same practise,* 1.46 which the papists will they, nil they, must perforce admit for good. The practise whereof I speake, is euident in the confirmation of these three Popes, Pelagius the second, Seuerinus and Benedictus the se∣cond. For al these three, and al other Bishops of Rome till the said Benedict inclusiue, were euer elected and confirmed, by the emperours commandement. Which veritie is freely confes∣sed in expresse tearmes, by foure famous popish writers, who therefore are and ought to be of more credite and force against the papists then any other authours whosoeuer: the names of the Popish doctors are these. Bapt. Platina, Bar••hol. Car∣ranza, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and Onuphrius Panui∣nius.

Platina writeth thus, touching the creation of Pelagius; Nilenim tum in eligendo pontifice actum erat,* 1.47 nisi eius elec∣tionem imperator approbasset.

For at that time, (which was after the incarnation of our redeemer 579) nothing was done effectually about the electi∣on of the Pope, vnlesse the Emperour had confirmed the same.

* 1.48Touching the creation of Seuerinus, the same Platina writeth in this manner.

Ʋana tunc enim habebatur cleri ac populi electio, nisi id im∣peratores auteorum exarchi confirmassent.

For the election of the cleargie and the people, was of no force at all in those dayes,* 1.49 vnlesse the Emperours or their lieu∣tenants, had confirmed the same. This was done 637. yeares after Christs incarnation.

Concerning the creation of Benedicte, Platina hath these words.

* 1.50Ad hunc Constantinus imperator sanctionem misit, vt dein∣ceps

quem clerus, populus, exercitús que Romanus in pontificem delegisset eundem statim verum Christi vicarium esse omnes cre∣derent: nulla aut Constantinopolitani principis, aut Italiae ex∣archi expectata auctoritate, vt anteà fieri consueuerat: id enim ratum erat in creando pontifice, quod princeps confirmasset, vel qui eius vices in Italia gerebat.

The emperour Constantine sent a decree to this Pope▪ that whomsoeuer the clergy, people, and Romane souldiers should hencefoorth chuse for their bishop, all people should by and by beleeue him to be the vicar of Christ (scilicet) if they would.

Bartholomeus Carranza a dominican Frier,* 1.51 hath the verie same assertion ad verbum.

Anastasius and Onuphrius haue these expresse words,* 1.52 pon∣tifices qui deinde fuerant, creati & consecrati sunt sine Con∣stantinopolitani imperatoris iussione.

The Popes that liued afterwards, were made and conse∣crated, without the Emperour of Constantinople his com∣maundement: as if they had saide, in the olde time and in the auncient Churche, no Bishoppe of Rome coulde haue beene admitted at anie time, vnlesse hee hadde brought letters pa∣tents from the Emperour, though now the practise bee farre otherwise.

Out of which doctrine,* 1.53 I gather these three euident and most necessarie corollaries. First, that the vulgar and common sort of people are grossely deceiued, when they terme papistrie the olde religion, and repute them for the Catholikes. For wee indeede are the true and auncient Catholikes, and the Papistes are nothing else but flatte Heretikes. For this Benedict coulde not bee made Bishoppe of Rome, without the Emperours Letters Patents. This primacie of the Em∣perour ouer the Bishoppe of Rome, was sixe hundred,* 1.54 foure score and foure yeeres after the incarnation of Christ. For at that time was this Benedict made the Pope. So then the Bishop of Rome, for the space almost of seuen hundred yeres after the incarnation of Christ Iesus, acknowledged the Em∣perour for his superiour and Lorde, as wythout whose Letters Patentes hee coulde haue no Iurisdiction. For,

as in ciuill causes, many are debarred from their lawfull inhe∣ritance,* 1.55 and that by the violent dealing of mightie men; euen so we catholikes haue beene many yeares excluded from our own churches, our ancient and lawfull possessions, and that by the force, violence, and tyrannie, of the bloudy Romish antichrists. And as temporall men are in time restored vnto their aunci∣ent right, by iust and godly magistrates, euen so were we, and are we, by the goodnes of God and most christian princes, king Henry the eight, and king Edward the sixt of famous memory, & our most gratious soueraigne Elizabeth, restored to the old, christian, catholike, and apostolike religion, and placed againe in our owne churches, the spirituall birthright of vs and our ancestours.

I gather secondly, that our Bishops in England are made and consecrated,* 1.56 according to the ancient, christian, catholike, and Romaine manner, that is, by the Letters patents of the Prince.

I gather thirdly, that Christian Emperours vppon a cer∣taine zeale not grounded vppon knowledge,* 1.57 yeelding vppe their soueraigne rights to the Bishops of Rome, opened the window to all antichristian tyrannie. For in short time after, the Romish Bishops became so arrogant and lordly, that they tooke vpon them to depose the Emperours, to translate their Empires, and to dispose at their pleasures, of their royall scep∣ters and regalities.

The third replie.

The church of God cannot bee without Bishoppes and priests,* 1.58 as you haue already gran••ed, and as I haue proued out of Saint Paul: but so it is, that when yee first reformed the church as you tearme it; yee neither had any Byshoppes nor any priests of your owne, neither coulde you find any but with vs and in our church, when Martin Luther went out from vs. Our church therefore and none but ours, is the true church of god. This reason is so strong, as it can neuer be tru∣ly answered.

The answere.

[ 1] I saie first, that this reason seemeth to carrie a maiestie with

it, and a verie plausible shewe of truth, and therefore did it a long time fascinate and seduce my selfe, yet I trust by Gods holy assistance so to solue it, as no papist shall haue cause any longer to glorie therein. I say secondly, that if our bishops [ 2] or our lay-brethren, had gone at any time to the greeke and East churches, they shoulde haue found as good a materiall succession at the least, as that of yours at Rome: but there was no neede to take so long and so painefull a iourney in hand. I say thirdly, that our bishops and priests of late yeares, were in∣deede [ 3] consecrated by such as were sometimes in your church. But thereupon will it not follow I assure you, that the true church of God was with you and not with vs: for no more can be inferred vpon your reason, but that there remained a certaine externall face, of the visible church still with you, that is to say, a mingled materiall succession of place and persons, without the formall Euangelicall succession of trueth and doctrine.

The fourth replie.

How can the pastors of the church, be without the doctrine of the church: for the church cannot bee without the pastors, as I haue proued and you also admitted? this is it, that I desire to learne.

The answere.

The reason hereof is this, because God promised to giue al∣waies pastors to his visible church: but he neuer promised this, to put the truth alwaies in their mouthes. For this cause saith Saint Paule, that God hath giuen pastors and teachers to his church vntil the end: but he neuer said,* 1.59 that he gaue them his holy spirit alwaies to preach and teach the truth: no, no, he ne∣uer promised any such thing. You brag of your succession, you say you are the church representatiue, & that your pope cannot erre, but whatsoeuer he defineth iudicially, that must be as true as the holy gospel. Euen so did the wicked Iewes boast when the Prophet of God reproued them: come said they, let vs i∣magine some deuice against Ieremy; for the law shall not pe∣rish from the priest, nor counsell from the wise,* 1.60 nor the worde

from the prophet. Thus did the Iewes boast then, and thus doe the papistes boast now.* 1.61 But what saith God by his Pro∣phet, to these your arrogant and Pharisaical conceites? doubt∣lesse cleane contrary; to wit, but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsell from the elder: as if hee had said; notwith∣standing your great bragges of your priuiledges, yet shall ye be infatuated, and spoiled of all counsel, trueth, and doctrine.

The fift replie.

The Apostle saith, that God gaue pastors and teachers to his church for this end,* 1.62 that they shuld not be caried away with false doctrine. But if the pastors all haue erred, as you would haue vs to beleeue; then in vaine did God giue pastors to his Church to preserue vs in the trueth. For they that should haue taught the trueth, did euen themselues swarue from the trueth; and so they became vnfit instrumentes, to doe the will of God.

The answere.

I say first, that albeit Gods wil be one as himselfe is one, willing by his owne essence and by one eternall and immuta∣ble act, whatsoeuer he willeth; yet is his will said to be mani∣fold, [ 1] aswel of the holy fathers, as of the schooledoctors. And this is done, for two special considerations. The former is, for the varietie of the thinges which God willeth. The latter is,* 1.63 for the varietie of the maner, by which God seemeth to will thinges. Hereupon arise many diuisions of Gods will, assig∣ned by learned writers for explication sake.

Some deuide Gods will, into antecedent and consequent. Some others diuide it, into the will of signe, and will of good pleasure. Others, into the will reuealed, and will not reuea∣led. Others, into the will absolute, an•• will conditionate, [ 2] and the like. I say secondly, that though Gods will con∣sequent and will of good pleasure, bee euer accompli∣shed vndoubtedly; yet is his will antecedent and will of signe, oftentimes neglected and left vndone. Of the former wil, the prophet speaketh in these words; whatsoeuer pleased y^e Lord,* 1.64 that did he in heauen and in earth, and in the Sea, and in all the depthes. And the Apostle saith: for who hath resi∣sted

his will? Of the latter, we haue many examples in the ho∣lie Scriptures. First,* 1.65 God commanded Pharao by Moses to let his people go, but Pharao would not obey. Secondly,* 1.66 God would haue gathered the Iewes togither, euen as the hen ga∣thereth her chickens vnder her wings,* 1.67 but they would not haue it so. Thirdly, God would haue all men to be saued, as Paul beareth witnesse; and yet we know by the holy gospel, that the greater part shalbe damned.* 1.68

I say thirdly, that Gods will mentioned in S. Paule, and now obiected against my resolution; is only voluntas signi (his will of signe:* 1.69) and not voluntas beneplaciti (his will of good pleasure:) and therefore it can neuer be effectually concluded out of this text, (which hitherto hath euer been reputed the strong bulwarke of poperie, and either dissembled or lightly passed ouer by the grauest writers;) that the pastors of the vi∣sible church alwaies teach the trueth, and neuer swarue from the same. Thus more plainly for the simple and ignorant sort. When the apostle saith,* 1.70 that God placed pastors and doctors in the church, that the people be not carried away with false doctrine; he neither meaneth that the pastors shall alwaies in∣fallibly teach the trueth, nor that the people shall alwaies con∣stantly embrace the truth. I proue it, because the apostle spea∣keth indefinitely and indifferently, of all teachers and of al hea∣rers, of al shepheardes and of all sheepe, neither excepting one nor other; and yet both ye know and we know, that many prea∣chers preach false doctrine,* 1.71 and that many hearers embrace the same. Whereupon it followeth necessarily, that if the Apostle meant as ye woulde haue him to meane; then Christes intent and purpose shoulde be frustrate indeede, which yet is it that your selues impugne. The apostle therfore meaneth only this, to declare voluntate signi, what he would haue his shepheards and sheepe to doe; albeit voluntate beneplaciti, the same be not euer accomplished.

This my explication of S. Paules meaning, is confirmed not only by the holy Scripture, but also by the expresse testimo∣nies of renowmed popish writers. Touching the holy Scrip∣ture; First, it is euident, that God would haue al men saued, for [ 1] so saith the apostle: Deus vult omnes homines saluos fieri.* 1.72 Gods

wil is, that all men shalbe saued, and come to the acknowled∣ging of the trueth. Whereby we see, that Gods wil and intent is to saue all: and yet doe we know assuredly, that al shal not be saued.* 1.73 For the gospel saith plainly: Multi vocati, pauci ve∣rò electi. Manie are called, but few are chosen. Secondly, it is [ 2] cleere, that God appointed good workes to this end, that men should walke in them; for so saith holy writ: Ipsius enim sumu•• factura, creati in Christo Iesu in bonis operibus, quae praeparauit deus vt in illis ambulemus.* 1.74 For wee are his workemanship, created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes, which God hath ordained that we should walke in them. And yet we see by daily [ 3] experience, that it is farre otherwise. Thirdly, God gaue vs his holie lawe,* 1.75 to the intent that wee shoulde accomplish it: (for so the scripture telleth vs, and no papist doth or can denie the same:) and yet haue we infallible knowledge out of the same scripture, that none liuing can keep & fulfil the law in al points. For if we could haue kept the lawe in al pointes,* 1.76 wee shoulde haue been iustified by the obseruation thereof, and so Chr••stes passion and his satisfaction had been needlesse. In all these pla∣ces therefore, and the like: Ʋoluntas signi must be vnderstood, but not voluntas beneplaciti.

Touching the popish Doctors, the Iesuite Bellarmine hath these words: At fine dubio singuli episcopi errare possunt, & a∣liquando errant,* 1.77 & inter se quando{que} dissentiunt, vt nesciamus quisnam eorum sequendus sit. But without doubt all bishops may erre seuerally, and doe erre sometime, and sometime dis∣sent one from another, insomuch that we cannot tel whom we [ 1] should follow. Out of which wordes, I note first, that God who caused Balaams asse to speake,* 1.78 hath enforced our Iesuite to confesse the trueth. I note secondly, that there is no Bishop [ 2] in the worlde, but hee both may erre and sometime doth erre; and consequently, that the pope of Rome is either no bishop at all by his owne Iesuites graunt, or els that he both may erre, and doth erre indeed.* 1.79 Which point I haue prooued copiously, in my booke of Motiues.

I note thirdly, that by our Iesuites confession, euery bishop [ 3] hath so many errours, that the people cannot tel whom to fol∣low, and consequently that S. Paul meant nothing lesse, then

that the pastors and doctors of the churche, shoulde alwaies teach the trueth.

I note fourthly, that since euery auncient father both may erre, and doth erre, and that by popish graunt; there is no rea∣son [ 4] why the papistes should vrge vs as they doe, to stand to the censure of the fathers in euery thing. Their owne Cardinall Panormitanus hath these wordes: Nam in concernentibus fi∣dem▪ etiam dictum vnius priuati esset praeferendum dicto papae,* 1.80 si ille moueretur mel••oribus rationibus noui & veteris testa∣menti, quam papa. Nec obstat, si dicatur quod concilium non po∣test errare, quia Christus orauit pro ecclesia sua vt non defice∣ret; quia dico, quod licet concilium generale repraesentet totam ecclesiam vniuersalem, tamen in veritate ibi non est vera eccle∣sia vniuersalis sed repraesentatiue: quia vniuersalis ecclesia cō∣stituitur, ex collectione omnium fidelium. Ʋnde omnes fideles orbis constituunt istam ecclesiam vniuersalem, cuius caput & sponsus est ipse Christus. Papa autē est vicarius Christi▪ & non verè caput ecclesiae, vt notat glossa in Clem. Ne Romani de elect. quae notabiliter dicit, quòd mortuo papâ ecclesia non est sine ca∣pite, & ista est illa ecclesia quae errare non potest Vnde possibile est, quòd vera fides Christi remaneret in vno solo, ita quod ve∣rum est dicere, quod fides non deficit in ecclesia. Sequitur: Chri∣stus ante passionem orauerat pro Perro▪ vt nō deficeret fides sua, ergo non dicitur deficere nec etiam errare, si remanet vera fides in vno solo. For concerning matters of faith, euen the iudge∣ment of one that is a meere lay man, ought to be preferred be∣fore the sentence of the pope; if that lay person could bring bet∣ter reasons out of the old and new testament, then did the pope. And it skilleth not if one say, that a councel cannot erre, because Christ praied for his church, that it should not faile. For I say, that although a general councel represent the whole vniuersall church, yet in trueth there is not truely the vniuersall Church,* 1.81 but representatiuely. For the vniuersall church consisteth, of the collection of all the faithful. Whereupon all the faithfull in the world, make this church vniuersall, wherof Christ himself is the head. The pope is the vicar of Christ, but not truely the head of the church, as noteth the glosse vpon the Clementines; which saith notably, that when the pope is dead, the Church

wanteth not an head, and this is that Church which cannot erre. Whereupon it is possible, that the true faith of Christ might remaine in one alone, and so it may truely be said, y^t the faith faileth not in the church. Christ before his passion praied for Peter, that his faith should not faile; therefore the church is not said to faile, neither to erre, so long as the true faith abi∣deth in one onely.

[ 1] Out of these wordes I note first, that by the opinion of the great Papist Panormitan, a meere lay mans iudgement euen in matters of faith, ought to be accepted and receiued be∣fore the popes constitution; if the lay man bring better reasons out of the scriptures,* 1.82 then the pope doth. Which saying doubt∣lesse is the foundation of the doctrine, this day established in the church of England, & in all other reformed churches through∣out the world. Neither doe we craue more of the papistes, then their owne doctors will affoord vs. I note secondly, that a ge∣nerall [ 2] councell may erre, because it is not the catholike or vni∣uersall church indeed.

I note thirdly, that that church which cannot erre, is not the [ 3] visible companie of pastors and doctors, but the inuisible socie∣tie of all the faithfull in the worlde. Where by (inuisible) I meane not, that any of the elect is inuisible in his corporal consi∣stence, but that the vniuersall congregation of the faithfull as vniuersall, is inuisible: that is to say, that no one mortall man seeth or knoweth all true beleeuers in the church. In which sense is truely verified the saying of Elias, when hee cried out that he only was left alone.* 1.83 For albeit it be true, that there was a visible church in Iudea vnder the good kinges, Asa and Io∣saphat,* 1.84 euen when Elias made his complaint that he was left alone: and although also that Abdias had told Elias, that hee had hid an C. prophets by L. in a caue, so as Elias could not be ignoraunt of a visible church in the worlde; yet is it most true with all this, that the vniuersall church as vniuersall, was in∣uisible to Elias; and that there were many thousandes of true beleeuers euen then in Samaria, whom ••lias neither saw nor knew. And therefore did God answere him, saying: I haue re∣serued to my selfe seuen thousand men, which haue not bowed the knee to Baall.* 1.85

I note fourthly, that howsoeuer the visible bishops and pa∣stors erre, yet doth not the vniuersal church erre, so long as the [ 4] faith remaineth in any one whosoeuer. I note fiftly, that as in the time of Elias, there were seuen thousand faithfull persons [ 5] whom he knew not: euen so were there in those daies,* 1.86 when Martin Luther began his reformation, many thousandes a∣mong the papists that sincerely beleeued the gospel, whom hee neither saw nor knew.

The 6 replie.

The scripture telleth vs, that the church cannot erre. For, as the Apostle saith, it is the house of the liuing God,* 1.87 the pillar and ground of trueth. Therefore either Gods apostle teacheth false doctrine, or els doubtlesse the trueth must euer be in the church.

The answere.

I answere, that the true church of God (which is the mysti∣call body of Christ) doth neuer erre wholly and generally in the fundamentall pointes of religion, and such as are necessary for our saluation. I say first, (the true church of God) because the societie of the visible pastors, are not euer the mysticall [ 1] members of Christ. I say secondly, (wholly and generally) because albeit the trueth may faile for a time in the pastors of [ 2] the church, yet shall it neuer perish in the elect and true mem∣bers thereof. For though particular churches may erre in par∣ticular pointes, yet shall the whole church neuer erre, in the articles of necessary doctrine. Though the elect may erre in part, and at sometime, yet shal they neuer erre,* 1.88 either all gene∣rally, or any one finally. For whom and in respect of whom, the church is rightly called the pillar of trueth.

This my exposition is made good by the testimonie of S. Austen, whose words be these: Secundā ergo Sabbathi non debe∣mus intelligere nisi ecclesiā Christi, sed ecclesiā Christi. in sanctis, ecclesiam Christi in his qui scripti sunt in coelo, ecclesiā Christi in ••is qui mundi huius tentationibus non cedunt.* 1.89 Ipsi enim digni sunt nomine, firmamēti. ergo ecclesia Christi in his qui firmi sunt,

appellata est firmamentum; quae est, in quit, ecclesia dei viui, co∣lumna & firmamentum veritatis. Therefore we may not vn∣derstand the second of the sabboth to bee any other then the church of Christ, yet the church of Christ in the saints, the church of Christ in those, which are not ouercome with the ten∣tations of this wicked world: for they are worthy the name of firmament; therefore the church of Christ is called the firma∣ment in those that are firme, which is (saith hee) the church of the liuing God,* 1.90 the piller and firmament of truth: The like saying hath S. Augustine in many other places, but especial∣ly where he writeth against the Donatists.

Saint Chrysostome expoundeth this place of the veritie it selfe, and not of the pastors as you papists doe: these are his expresse words, quippe veritas ecclesiae, & columna & firma∣mentum est; for the veritie of the church, is both the piller and the firmament. And Anselmus holdeth flatly the opinion of Saint Austen,* 1.91 expounding the words of Saint Paul so plain∣ly of the elect, as no papist is able to auoide the same, vnlesse they will reiect Anselmus, because they cannot answere him: and yet they cannot so do without blushing, because they haue hitherto reputed him for their owne: these therefore are his ex∣presse words.

Domus in qua Deus habitat, ecclesia est ex multis collecta fi∣delibus qui variis modis sunt docendi,* 1.92 & ipsa eius ecclesia est in perfectis columna, id est, sublimis & recta, & inconcussibi∣lis & sustentans iuniores atque sustollens, & in eisdem perfec∣tis est ipsa firmamentum veritatis; quia verbis & exemplis firmat in cordibus infirmorum, veritatem fidei & mandatorum Dei.

The house in which God dwelleth, is the whole congre∣gation of the faithfull, who are to be taught diuersly: and the same church is in the perfect a piller, that is, sublime, straight, inconcussible, supporting and lifting vp the yonger sort, and in the same perfect, it is the firmament of truth, because both by words and examples it confirmeth in the hearts of the weake, the veritie of faith and Gods commandements.

Out of these words I gather first, that the house of God, whereof the Apostle writeth to Timothy, is (not the rable of

Popes and popish prelates) but the congregation of the faith∣full. I gather secondly, that it is meant as well of the laytie, [ 2] as of the clergy: and my reason is founded in these words of Anselmus, (who are to be taught;) for the pastors ex officio must teach the flocke, and not bee taught of the flocke. I ga∣ther thirdly, that it is meant specially of the elect; & my ground is this, because Anselmus saith, it is a piller in the perfect For if there be anie perfection, it is doubtlesse in the elect and none else.

The Popes owne Doctours▪* 1.93 Panormitanus and Syluester doe tell vs in plaine and manifest tearmes, that it is the whole congregation of the faithfull that cannot erre: these are Syl∣uesters words.

Et sic intellige glossam dicentem, quòd ecclesia quae errare non potest, dicitur non papa, sed congregatio fidelium, quae scilicet te∣net fidem quam Petrus cum aliis populis docuit. And thus must the glosse be vnderstood, which saith, that the church which can∣not erre, is not the pope, but the congregation of the faithfull, that is, such as hold firmely that doctrine, which Saint Peter with other (godly) people taught.

Panormitan writeth thus, Ecclesia vniuersitatis errare non potest scilicet in fide vel articulis fidei:* 1.94 & pro hac tantum Chri∣stus in Euangelio orauit ad patrem: in aliis autem non solum ec∣clesia particularis, verum etiam vniuersalis, id est, collecti•• fi∣delium seu concilium generale, errare potest.

The church vniuersall cannot erre, that is to say, in the faith or in the articles of our beliefe:* 1.95 and for this church onely was Christs praier, when he prayed to his father in the gospel; yet in other things, not onely the particular church, but the vniuer∣sal likewise may erre, that is to say, the collection of the faith∣full, or a generall councell. Yea, the Popes own decrees af∣firme so much, to wit, that the church is catholicorum collectio: the congregation of the (faithfull) catholickes. And the popes own deare glosse vppon his own decrees,* 1.96 doth most liuely de∣scribe that church which cannot erre, to be the congregation of the faithful: thus is it there written in expresse tearmes.

Quaero de qua ecclesia intelligas, quod hic dicitur, quod non possit errare si de ipso papa, certum est quod papa errare potest:

respondeo, ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur ecclesia, & ta∣lis ecclesia non potest non esse.

I aske thee (O Pope Luci) of what church thou vnderstan∣dest that, which thou tellest vs in this place: to wit, that the church cannot erre. For if thou vnderstandest it of the Pope himselfe, it is verie certaine that the Pope may erre. I an∣swere therefore, that the church is heere taken for the congre∣gation of the faithfull, and such a church can neuer erre (in∣deede.) Out of these words of Pope Lucius I note first, that [ 1] when the Pope affirmeth that the church cannot erre, then his own deere and faithful interpreter answereth roundly, that that priuiledge is not granted to the Pope, but to the whole congre∣gation of the faithfull. I note secondly, that the saide glosse [ 2] proueth by sundrie chapters of the Popes owne cannon-law, that the Pope both may erre and hath alreadie erred, de facto. I note thirdly, that that church in which the truth alwaies [ 3] abideth, is the multitude of the faithfull. I therefore conclude with S. Paul, S. Augustine, Saint Chrysostome, Anselmus, Syluester, Panormitanus, the Popes owne canon-law, and popish interpreters vpon the same, that the congregation of the faithfull, is the piller and ground of truth, and that church which cannot erre.

The seauenth replie.

Christ promiseth to bee with his disciples vntill the worlds end, but the Apostles departed hence long sithence: therfore as the fathers truely gather,* 1.97 he meaneth of being with the catho∣like byshops, the true successours of the Apostles.

The answere.

I say first, that your popish Bishoppes of late yeares are neither catholike bishops, nor successours of the Apostles, as I haue alreadie proued▪ I say secondly, that Christ promiseth his spirituall and inuisible presence, not onely to the Apo∣stles for their time, but also to the congregation of the faithful til the worlds ende: and I proue it by the testimonie of the ho∣ly fathers, Saint Chrysostome, and Saint Augustine; Saint Chrysostome hath these expresse words.

Nam cum dicit: ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vs∣que

ad consummationem seculi, nō ad eos tantummodo loquitur, sed per eos ad vniuersum prorsus orbem.* 1.98

For when he saith, behold, I am with you alwaies vntil the ende of the world, hee speaketh not onely to them, but to all doubtlesse that are in the whole world•• which assertion he hath in many other places of his works.

Saint Augustine hath words so important for this end and scope, as more shall not neede to be alleaged. Thus doth hee write in flat tearmes; Non itaque fi•• dictum est apostolis, eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem & in tota Iudaea, & Samaria,* 1.99 &. vsque in extremum terrae, tanquam ipsi foli quibus tunc loque∣batur tantum munus fuerint impleturi; sed sicut eis solis videtur dixisse quod dixit, ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque in consumma∣tionem seculi quod tamen eum vniuersa ecclesiae promisisse quae aliis mortentibus, aliis nas••e••tibus hic vsque in seculi consum∣mationem futura est, quis non intelliga••? sicut eis & iliud ait, quod ad eos omnino non pertinet: & tamen sic dictum est, tan∣quam ad solos etiam pertineret, cum videritis haec omnia, scito∣te quia propé est in ianu••••: ad quos enim hoc pertinet, nisi ad eos qui in carne tunc erunt, eum omnia complebuntur?

It is not therefore so said to the Apostles, ye shalbe my wit∣nesses in Hierusalem, and in al Iurie, and in Samaria, & euen to the vtmost parts of the world, as if they onely to whom he then spoke, should haue accomplished so great a matter; but as he seemeth to haue said onely to them, that which hee said (in these words) behold, I am with you to the worlds end. Which thing neuerthelesse euery one perceiueth, that he spoke it to the vniuersal church; which by the death of some, and by the birth of other some▪ shall continue to the worlds end; euen as hee saith that to them, which doth nothing at all pertaine to them; and yet is it so spoken as if it onely pertained to them, to wit, when y•••• shall see these things come to passe, knowe that it is neare 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the doores. For to whome doth this pertaine, but to those who shall then bee liuing, when all thinges shall bee accomplished▪ In these words Saint Austen proueth plainly, that this obiection wherin the papists glory so greatly, make th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for them: for (saith hee) these words alreadie reci∣ted, one spoken to the whole congregation of the faithfull▪

which are or shall be to the worlds end, and this Saint Austen sheweth by two reasons:

[ 1] First, because not onely the Apostles, but others together with them, should be his witnesses in Hierusalem and Sama∣ria; albeit Christ spoke that of them, touching the bearing witnesse of him; as he spoke this to them, concerning his spiri∣tual presence. And therefore as hee spoke the other to all the faithful, so did he also this: that is, promised his inuisible pre∣sence, not onely to the Apostles or pastors of the church, but e∣uen to all the faithful in the world.

[ 2] Secondly, because Christ spoke that to his Apostles as per∣taining onely to them, which for al that did nothing at al con∣cerne them: as if he had saide; it is not a good reason to denie Christs presence to the whole church, because hee vttered the words onely to the Apostles. For since hee spoke that to the Apostles which pertained nothing to them but onely to others; much more might he speake that to them, which belonged to them with others.

The eight replie.

* 1.100Christ himselfe saith▪ that the holy ghost shal teach the A∣postles al trueth, euen many things whereof they were not ca∣pable then; and therefore did he be serue those things, till the comming of the holy ghost.

The answere.

I answere, that the holy ghost after Christs ascension taught the Apostles al truth, euen such things as Christ had reserued; and that by reason of their ••uditie and imperfection in concei∣••••••g heauenly doctrine: yet those things so reserued, and the truth so taught was nothing else, but a manifest explication of the selfe same veritie, which they in briefe before had heard. For the holy ghost did coyne no new doctrine,* 1.101 nor reueale anie new articles of faith: but onely taught the Apostles the true s••nse of Christs words, which before for their dulnesse, they were not able to perceiue which sense they being directed by the instinct of the holy ghost, deliuered to the whole world; first, by word, and afterward by writing.

Al this I proue by two euident demonstrations: first because [ 1] Christ himself doth so expoūd himself, in these words folowing

He shal teach you all things, and bring all things to your re∣membrance which I haue told you: which saying must bee wel noted,* 1.102 because the latter words are a plaine declaration of the former; as if Christ had said: all things which the holy ghost shall teach the apostles after my departure,* 1.103 are no newe doctrine, but the very same things which they heard before of me, and they differ onely in this, that the Apostles doe more plainely vnderstand them, by the assistance of the holy ghost.

Secondly, because the best learned popish doctors, do holde [ 2] the same opinion. For Melchior Canus hath these words: Nec vllas in fide nouas reuelationes ecclesia habet:* 1.104 for the church hath no new reuelations in matters of faith. Thus saith Christ himselfe, and thus teacheth their owne doctour, and yet would the papists enforce vs, daily to admit new doctrines from the church of Rome.

The ninth replie.

Peter is the rocke of the church, against which hell-gates shall neuer preuaile:* 1.105 therfore Saint Peters successors can ne∣uer erre.

The answere.

I answere, that not Saint Peter, but the confession which he made, is that rocke of the church, against which hell gates shal not preuaile. And this is not my opinion onely, but Saint Be∣da, Saint Austen, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Hylarie, and sun∣drie verie learned papists, doe teach the same doctrine constant∣ly. These are Saint Austens wordes: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram quam confessus es,* 1.106 super hanc petram quam cognouisti dicens, tu es Christus filius Dei viui, aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Id est, super meipsum filium Dei viui, aedificabo ecclesiam meam: super me edificabo te, non me super te: thou art Peter (saith Christ) and vppon this rocke which thou hast confessed, vpon this rocke which thou hast acknowledged,* 1.107 say∣ing: thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God, will I build my church, that is, vpon my selfe the sonne of the liuing God will I build my church, vppon my selfe will I build thee, not my selfe vpon thee.

Saint Chrysostome writeth thus: Columnae quidem, quoni∣am virtute sua ecclesiae robur sunt:* 1.108 fundamentum, quòd in con∣fessione insorum fundata est ecclesia, dicente domino: Tu es Pe∣trus, & super hanc petram fundabo ecclesiam meam. The A∣postles are the pillers, because by their vertue they are the strength of the Church: they are the foundation, because the Church is built in their confession; when the Lorde saieth: thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my church. Loe, this text vpon which the Papists build their popish pri∣macie, is vnderstood of all the Apostles, not of Peter alone; nei∣ther is the church built vpon any of their persons, but vpon the ioynt confession of them all:* 1.109 for Peter made the confession in the name of them all, as Saint Chrysostome truely saith, which confoundeth the Papists vtterly.

S. Hylarie hath these words: Haec fides ecclesiae fundamen∣tum est:* 1.110 per hanc fidem, infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae infero∣rum: haec fides regni caelestis habet claues: this faith is the foundation of the church: by this faith hell gates shall not pre∣uaile against it; this faith hath the keyes of heauen.

The receiued popish glosse vpon this text, doth vnderstand by the rocke, Peters faith, and the confession which he made. Panormitan and Syluester both being great papists,* 1.111 are of the same opinion.

The tenth replie.

Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith should neuer faile: therefore the Pope cannot erre.* 1.112

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that the Popes faith both may faile, and hath fai∣led de facto, as I haue proued at large in my booke of Mo∣tiues. [ 2] I say secondly, that the insuffiencie of this consequent [ 3] is vnfolded, in many places of this chapter. I say thirdly, that as Christ prayed for Peter, so did he also for the rest of the A∣postles, & for the whole church. And this I do not barely say, but I wil proue it by the verdicte of the holy fathers, as also of your own doctors: & first by Christ Iesus his own declaratiō.

Concerning your Pope, all wise men in the world worthily deride you papists, for your vaine, ridiculous, and fabulous conceits, of his faith. For first the truth enforceth you to grant (as I haue proued in my Motiues) that your Pope may holde [ 1] false opinions in matters of faith, either sitting in his chaire, or walking in his garden, or looking about him in his Bel-vidê∣re, or riding on his white palfrey, or lying in his bed waking, or at the table eating, or while he giueth pardons and Iubilees. Secondly, that hee may vtter the same errour and false faith, [ 2] secretly to his friends. Thirdly, that he may publish the same in his Extrauagants, Epistles, and printed bookes. Which 3. [ 3] grants sufficiently ouerthrow your popes supposed priuilege, if nothing else could be said against the same.* 1.113 Concerning Pe∣ters faith, it is certaine, that Christ prayed as well for al the e∣lect as for Peter, and directed his words not to Peter, as to one priuat man, but as to one representing the whole church: and consequently, whatsoeuer Christ said or did touching Pe∣ters faith, must perforce bee vnderstoode of the faith of the whole church; which, as is proued, shall neuer faile indeede. This being once made good, your mightie obiection (wherin ye glorie much,) wil bee of no force at all. My first reason is contained in Christs owne words, which are these:* 1.114 I pray not for the worlde, but for them which thou hast giuen mee, for they are thine. In which words it is cleare, that Christ praieth onely for Peter, but for al his disciples as wel as for him; and he sheweth the equitie of his petition, by sundrie reasons. First [ 1] because hee prayeth for Gods friends. Secondly, because he [ 2] prayeth for Gods elect. Thirdly, because of the vnspeakeable [ 3] vnion, betweene his father and himselfe. Fourthly, because he [ 4] is glorified in them, & so is his father also. Fiftly, because they [ 5] are enuironed with many tentations of this wicked world.* 1.115 A∣gaine, Christ saith, I pray not for these only, but for them also, that shall beleeue in me through their word. In which words his former praier which seemed to be made for his disciples on∣ly is nowe extended to all the faithfull vntil the worlds ende, a sentence doubtlesse replenished with all solace, towardes vs and the whole Church of God, as which is the onely foun∣dation of our saluation, to witte, that Christ did no lesse

pray for vs, then he did for his owne apostles. And this reason is confirmed in an other place, where Christ promiseth to be a∣mong those that are gathered in his name,* 1.116 though they be but two in number. Which words (as our Iesuite Bellarmine doth grant) are meant aswel of the Laicall as Ecclesiasticall sort.

* 1.117My second reason is grounded vpon the interpretation of the ancient fathers. S. Austen hath these expresse words; Et Pe∣tro dicit,* 1.118 Ecce Satanas expostulauit vt vos ventilet sicut triticū, ego autem rogaui pro te, vt non deficiat fides tua, & tu tandem conuersus, confirma fratres tuos. Quid ambigitur? pro Petro rogabat, & pro Iacobo & Ioanne non rogabat vt caeteros tace∣am? manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri, quia & in alio lo∣co dicit, ego pro his rogo, quos mihi dedisti pater, & volo vt v∣bi ego sum, & ipsi sint mecum. And he saith to Peter, Behold, sathan hath desired to winnow you as wheat, but I haue pray∣ed for thee, that thy faith faile not; therefore thou once conuer∣ted, confirme thy brethren. What doubt is there? Did hee pray for Peter, and did he not also pray for Iames and Iohn, to say nothing of the rest? It is plaine, that in Peter all the rest are meant, because hee saith in an other place: I pray for these, O Father, which thou hast giuen mee, and desire that they may be with mee where I am.* 1.119 Origen, who liued manie yeeres afore saint Austen, affirmeth in a large discourse vpon saint Matthew, that all things spoken of Peter touching the church and the keyes, are to be vnderstoode of all the rest. And the collection of Origen is euident, euen by natural reason: For if Christ prayed not as well for the rest as for Peter, of small credite were a great part of the holy scripture.* 1.120 A reason doubt∣lesse insoluble for all papists in the worlde. For if they coulde faile in their faith, they could also faile in their writing: and yet that they could not so faile, was by vertue of Christs prayer.

* 1.121My third reason is the flatte opinion and constant doctrine of great learned papists. Panormitanus was their skilful Cano∣nist, their religious abbot, and their renowmed archbishop: and consequently, his authority must needs gall and confound them all,* 1.122 his wordes are these; Et pro hac tantùm Christus in e∣uangelio orauit ad patrem, ego rogaui prote. And for this (he meaneth the vniuersall church) Christ onely prayed to his fa∣ther

in the gospel, when he saide; I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not. Behold here (gentle Reader) and yeelde thine indifferent censure. When Christ (saith the great papist Panorm.) prayed that Peters faith should not faile, hee pray∣ed for the faith of the vniuersall church, whose faith shal neuer faile indeede.* 1.123 And the said Panormitan prooueth his opinion directly, by many texts of the popes Canon law. de Elect. cap. significasti.

Alphonsus à Castro a religious popish Carthusian hath these wordes; Non dubitamus an haereticum esse, & papam esse,* 1.124 coire in vnum possint, infra: Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo im∣pudentem papae assentatorem vt ei tribuere hoc velit, vt nec er∣rare, nec in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinari possit: Wee doubt not, whether one man may be a pope and an heretike both together. For I beleeue there is none so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope, that will ascribe this vnto him, that he can neither erre, nor be deceiued in the exposition of the scriptures.

The eleuenth reply.

All Christs sheepe are committed to Peter,* 1.125 and consequent∣ly to the pope, Ergo

The answer.

I say first, that the bishop of Rome is not saint Peters suc∣••essor, [ 1] and I haue already prooued it effectually. I say second∣ly, that all Christs sheepe were committed to all the apostles [ 2] in like manner. For Christ gaue all his apostles charge and authoritie, to go into all the worlde, and to teach all nations. Which answer saint Austen sheweth excellently, in the person of saint Peter to be accomplished: his owne words are these; Ecclesiae catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, & cùm ei dicitur,* 1.126 ad omnes dicitur: amas me? pasce oues meas. Peter representeth the person of the church catholique, and when it is said to him, it is said to all: Louest thou me? Feede my sheepe. Loe, the popish bulwarke is battered downe.

CHAP. III. Of the marriage of priests and ministers of the church.

The first Proposition.

AL Ministers which are not papists, nor subiect to the lawes and rules of Poperie, may lawfully marry, euen by the do∣ctrine of the Church of Rome: albeit the vulgar sorte of Pa∣pists, most bitterly exclaime against the same. I proue it, be∣cause all such ministers are meere lay men, by the iudgement of the church of Rome:* 1.127 which church for all that, onely debar∣reth persons ecclesiasticall, from the freedome of honourable wedlocke. This probation is so euident, as no learned papist can or will denie the same. Peruse the end of the seauenth pro∣position following, and it will satisfie thee in all respects.

The second Proposition.

Marriage was lawfull for all priests and other ministers of the church, during all the time of the olde Testament. This proposition is cleere, to all such as diligently reuolue the holie Bibles; neither doe I know any learned papist, that by worde or writing denyeth the same. For the holie prophet Ieremie was the son of Helkiah,* 1.128 who was one of the priests that were at Anathoth. Hophni and Phinehas were the sonnes of Heli the priest, Sephora was the daughter of Iethro the priest of Midian: and Saint Iohn Baptist was the sonne of Zachari∣as the priest, to whome the angell of God was sent to bring him glad tidings. The tidings were these, that Elizabeth his wife should beare him a sonne,* 1.129 albeit she was barren, and well stricken in age. And he receiued the message while he was oc∣cupied in prayer, and in burning of incense at the right side of the al••are. Whereby it clearely appeareth, how acceptable the [ 1] marriage of priests was then in Gods sight. For first, Saint Iohn was a very holie man, and the precursor of our Sauiour Christ. Secondly, Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife were

both iust, and walked in Gods commaundements without re∣proofe. Thirdly, the angell of God was sent to Zacharias, to [ 2] tell him that his wife should conceiue and beare him a sonne. [ 3] Fourthly, this message was brought him euen then, when he executed his priestly function. All which circumstances well [ 4] obserued, do proue vndoubtedly, that the marriages of priests are honourable in Gods sight.

The third Proposition.

Marriage is lawfull for priests and other ministers of the church, euen now in the time of the new testament. Where by the word (priests) I vnderstand all such as are admitted to preach Gods worde, and to administer the holy sacraments. This proposition may be prooued, by many waightie and im∣portant reasons. First, because no text in the new Testament can be alleadged, which debarreth the ministers thereof from [ 1] the benefite of marriage graunted in the olde. If any Papist will say that there is some such text in the new testament, let him shew that text, and wee will beleeue him. In the meane season, hee must pardon vs, if wee giue not credite to his words.

Secondly, because the apostle prooueth in two seuerall pla∣ces, that all priests may be married. Where, what I meane by [ 2] priests, is already shewed. The first place is that reason which Saint Paule maketh to Timothie, and is contained in these wordes: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A Bi∣shop therefore must be vnreproueable, the husband of one wife.* 1.130 This text of holy scripture (if it be throughly marked) doeth plainely conuince, that it is lawfull for a Bishop to marry. Let vs therefore exactly examine the true meaning and sense there∣of.

The Papists to maintaine their diabolicall doctrine of sin∣gle life, would rack this text to those wiues, which bishops had before they were admitted to ecclesiasticall function,* 1.131 but that is a forced and violent exposition, contrary to the true mean∣ing of the apostle. For Saint Paule among other vertues conuenient for a Bishoppe, requireth this for one, that hee bee not coupled to more wiues then one at once. Nneither is

it possible to imagine any other true sense, of this present text. [ 1] For first, it is not of necessitie, that a bishop haue a wife; and yet doth the Apostle say, that hee must be the husband of one wife. For both they and wee agree in this, that one may be a lawfull bishop, and yet liue vnmarried.

[ 2] Againe, the apostle speaketh in the present tence (must be the wife:) and not, (must haue been the wife) so that the glosse of the papistes must needes be false, who expound the wordes, of the time already past.

[ 3] Thirdly, the Apostles wordes must needes be verified, of mariage in some sense. But first, it cannot be meant of mariage already past, because the verbe is of the time present. Again, it cannot be meant of the necessitie of marriage, because a Bishop may lawfully liue vnmarried.* 1.132 Therefore thirdly, this must needes be the true meaning thereof: to wit, that a bishop may marry if he list, but yet not haue many wiues at one and the same time, as the Iewes and the Gentiles had. And to this ex∣position doe accord not only S. Chrysostome and Theophilact, but also their owne deere Cardinall Caietane.

* 1.133S. Chrysostome hath these expresse wordes; Non hoc veluti sanciens dicit, quasi non liceat absque vxore episcopum fieri sed eius rei modum constituens. Iudaeis quippe licitum erat etiam se∣cundo matrimonio iungi, & duas itidem simul habere vxores; honorabiles enim nuptiae.

* 1.134He saith not this, meaning to establish a law, as though none could be a bishop, who hath not a wife; but his purpose is, to appoint a measure in that behalfe. For the Iewes might not only be twise married, but also haue two wiues at once. For marriage is an honourable thing. The apostle therefore spea∣keth against Polygamie.* 1.135 Yea, S. Hierome confesseth that sun∣dry writers expound this place, against the Polygamie of the Iewes.

The same S. Chrysostome in another place, hath these gol∣den words;* 1.136 Obstruere prorsus intendit haereticorum ora qui nup∣tias damnant, ostendens eam rem culpâ carere, imo ita esse pretio∣sam, vt cum ipsa etiam possit quispiam ad sanctum episcopatus solium s••buehi.

The Apostle intendeth to confound the heretiques, that con∣demne

marriage; declaring that it is faultlesse, and a thing so pretious, as a man may with it be promoted to the holy functi∣on of a bishop. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, whose wordes are so plaine and pithie, as no papist is able to wrest and writhe them to serue his turne. For first,* 1.137 S. Chrysostome prooueth marriage to be honourable and holy, against the heretickes that condemned it, and that because a Bishoppes function is honourable and holie, who for all that may bee a mar∣ried man. Which argument were vaine and friuolous, if Saint Chrysostome should speake of a Bishops marriage, while he was a meere lay man. For hereupon would it follow necessa∣rily, that tyrannie, persecution, adultery, and murder, should be honourable, aswell as honest wedlocke. I prooue it,* 1.138 because no disparitie can be giuen betweene S. Chrysostomes reason▪ and this of mine. For first; as the function of a bishop is honourable, so [ 1] is the function of an Apostle, so is the function of a prophet. A∣gaine, as a married man may be a bishop, so may a persecutor [ 2] of Christes church be an apostle, for S. Paul was both: so may an adulterer, so may a murderer be an holy prophet: for good king Dauid was all three. Thirdly, as tyrannie is a great sin, ••lbeit once a tyrant may afterward become an apostle: and as [ 3] adultery and murder be greeuous crimes, although once an a∣dulterer and once a murderer may afterward bee an holy pro∣phet; euen so doubtlesse, marriage may be an vnlawfull thing; albeit once a married man, may afterward be an holy bishop. And so S. Chrysostome coulde not well conclude marriage to be lawful, because once a married man may be a Bishop.* 1.139 S. Chry∣sostome saith yet further, that euen with it, eumeâ, with holie wedlocke, one may be made a bishop; euen while hee is a mar∣ried man. For as the father and the sonne, so also the husband and the wife be relatiues and correlatiues, whose nature is (as all Logicians graunt) to place and displace, be and not be, liue and die all at once. For so soone as a man beginneth to be a fa∣ther, so soone hath he a childe; and so soone as hee ceaseth to haue a childe, so soone ceaseth he to be a father, although he still remaine a man. And euen so is it with the husband and the wife. Adde hereunto, that S. Chrysostome should not say, (with wed∣locke,) but, (after it,) if he meant as the papistes woulde haue

him to doe. I therefore conclude, that if S. Chrysostome meane not of a Bishoppes marriage, during the very time hee is a bishop,* 1.140 his argument is vaine and friuolous. And in this argu∣ment, Theophilactus subscribeth to S. Chrysostome.

The second place is that reason, which S. Paule maketh to the Corinthians, and is conteined in these wordes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.141 Haue we not power to leade about a sister, a wife, aswel as the rest of the apostles, and as the brethren of the Lorde and Cephas?

By this it appeareth manifestly, (if it be well marked,) that S. Peter and other of the apostles were married; and that they did leade their wiues about with them,* 1.142 when they went abroad preaching the holy gospel. For first, the Greeke worde in the [ 1] originall, signifieth a wife as well as a woman. Secondly, the [ 2] word (carrying about) argueth a certaine interest and right, in [ 3] the partie that is carried about. Thirdly, it had been a very [ 4] scandalous thing, that the apostles being single men, shoulde carry strange women about with them. Fourthly, this place cannot be vnderstoode of riche matrones; because such women would haue relieued the apostles, and not haue suffered them to be chargeable to their auditors: and yet doth the apostle here speake of such women, as were relieued by the preaching of the [ 5] Gospel. Fiftly, if the Greeke word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) be not here taken for a wife, but for a woman, it must needes be a vain and chil∣dish [ 6] addition, because euery sister is a woman. Sixtly, because S. Cl••ment, and Eusebius Caesariensis, expound this place of S. Paules wife,* 1.143 and not of any other woman.

Iohannes Christophorsonus, a great papist, alledgeth S. Cle∣ments wordes, out of Eusebius in this maner.

Clemens deinceps apostolos qui matrimonium contraxisse re∣periuntur,* 1.144 en••merat, ídque contra eorum sententiam, qui nup∣tias tollere abrogareque instituerent Numinquit sunt apostolos improbaturi: Petrus enim & Philippus, liberos procrearunt. Philippus filias viri collocauit in matrimonium. Paulus etiam non veretur in quadam epistola, contugis suae mentionem facere; quam eò minime secum circumduxit, quò facilius liberius{que} suo fungeretur ministerio.

Clement afterward reckoneth the apostles, who are knowne to haue been married men; and that against their opinion, who endeuoured to abrogate and take away marriage. Will they (saith he) condemne the apostles? for both Peter and Philip begat children, and Philip bestowed his daughters vpon hus∣bandes in marriage. Paul also blusheth not in one of his Epi∣stles, to make mention of his wife▪* 1.145 whom he woulde not carrie about with him, to the end hee might preach the gospel more freely. See the first proposition following.

The first obiection.

It is cleere, that S. Paul would not marry his owne sister; and therefore the woman he speaketh of, could not be his wife.

The answere.

I answere, that the names of brother and sister in the primi∣tiue church, were proper to the faithfull and true beleeuers. Sundrie wiues also in those daies, were of a dissonant religion from their husbands. S. Paule therefore to shew his wife to be a christian, and a true beleeuer, calleth her a sister. As if he had said, the woman I speake of, is not only my wife, but withall a christian and a true beleeuer.

The 2. obiection.

These women that S. Paul speaketh of, were not the wiues of the apostles, but cer••aine deuout women, that followed the Apostles for zeale of the gospel; as we reade of many women that followed Christ, and did not thereby commit any scandall at all.

The answere.

I say first, that the women S. Paule speaketh of, were the wiues of the apostles as I haue proued. I say secondly, y^t it is [ 1] one thing to follow voluntarily, as the women did our sauiour [ 2] Christ; and another thing to be led about, as were the women of whom the apostle speaketh. I say thirdly, that it was an vsual and ordinary thing▪ aswell for women as for men, [ 3]

to resort to Hierusalem, whither these women followed Christ. I say fourthly, that these wom••n were many togither, and [ 4] went in the company of their husbandes and neighbours; and so they could not be subiect to any scandal at al. But if the Apo∣stles were single men, and went into seuerall partes of the worlde, and led single women about with them, so must they then needes be subiect vnto scandall; vnlesse they were, as [ 5] is said, their lawfull wiues indeed. I say fiftly, that if they were old women, they could not endure the labours of so pain∣full and long iournies.* 1.146 And if they were yong women, or vn∣der threescore, they ought to marry according to Paules doc∣trine.

The 4. proposition.

Marriage was deemed lawful for all sortes of people; aswel for ecclesiasticall persons as others: & that for many hundreth [ 1] yeares togither, after Christes glorious ascension into heauen. This proposition I prooue many waies; First, because Peter, [ 2] Iames, Paul, Philip, and the rest of the apostles, were all married, as is already prooued. Secondly, because sundrie of the holy fathers,* 1.147 had wiues and children. S. Gregory Nazian∣zene was a bishops sonne, and admitted to the pastorall charge by his father in his life time. S. Cheremon the bishop of Nico∣polis in Egypt, was a married man and a stout confessor. For both he and his wife being wel stricken in year••s,* 1.148 fled from per∣secution to a mountaine in Arabia; from whence they neither returned, neither were after that seene of any man. S. Philo∣gonius so highly commended by S. Chrysostome, was a mar∣ried bishop, and had a daughter.

S. Spiridion, who wrought wonderfull myracles in his life time,* 1.149 was the bishop of Cyprus, and a married man; he had a daughter Irene by name: who being full of pietie and sancti∣monie of life, died a virgine. This married bishop liued about 350. yeares after Christ.* 1.150 Eupsychius the bishop of Caesaria was a married man, and soone after his marriage martyred for Christ Iesus. For (as Nicephorus and Cassiodorus report in their ecclesiasticall histories) he was put to death, being as yet

in manner a new married man. Thirdly, because the Popes owne canon lawe telleth vs, that many Popes were the [ 3] sons of priests, to wit Bonifacius, Agapitus, Theodorus, Sylue∣rius, Foelix, Hosius, Gelasius, Deusdedit; and many others. But perhaps our papists will say, that all these were bastards,* 1.151 and answer with their glosse, that vitium tollitur per successionem, the fault is taken away by succession. Oh,* 1.152 what will not po∣perie doe? But yet wee may put them in mind of another ca∣non, which telleth them,* 1.153 that al these Popes aforenamed were legitimate children, because in those dayes Popes and Bi∣shops might marrie lawfully. Which assertion, proueth exact∣ly my proposition.

Fourthly, because many councels haue decreed this veritie; and the Apostles themselues in their canons, haue set down [ 4] this decree.

Episcopus, aut presbyter, aut diaconus,* 1.154 vxorem suam praetextu religionis non abiicito: si abiicit, segregator à communione; si perseuerat, deponator:

Let neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Deacon, put away his wife vnder pretence of religion: if hee so doe, let him be excom∣municate; if he cont••••ue, let him be deposed.

Out of these words I note first, that in the dayes of the [ 1] Apostles, it was lawfull for Bishoppes, Priests, and Dea∣cons to haue wiues. I note secondly, that if either Bishop, [ 2] priest, or Deacon, shoulde put away his wife vnder pretence of (holynesse or) religion; for that his offence, hee ought to bee [ 3] excommunicated. I note thirdly, that if the Bishoppe, priest, or Deacon, would not receiue his wife againe, whome he had put away vnder pretence of holinesse, (which the Pope this day so straitly commaundeth,) then such Priest, Bishoppe, and Deacon, ought to bee depriued of his liuing. I note fourthly, that these Canons how soeuer they be indeede, are [ 4] highly magnified of the papists, and therefore must they of ne∣cessitie, be a forceable testimonie against them.

In the councell of Ancyra it was decreed, that the deacons, who in the time of their orders saide they woulde marrie, shoulde continue still in the ministerie,* 1.155 euen after the celebra∣tion of their marriage. Where note, that this councell was

holden about three hundred and eight yeeres after Christs in∣carnation.* 1.156

The councel of Gangra accursed him, that thought a marri∣ed priest might not minister the holy communion.* 1.157

The third councell of Constantinople (the sixt generall sy∣node so called) decreed, that Priests, Deacons, and subdea∣cons,* 1.158 should continue with their lawfull wiues, and bege••te children, at al such time & times, as they were not in actual ex∣ecution of the ministerie:* 1.159 albeit they knew the church of Rome to haue another custome. This famous generall councel was holden about the yere of our Lord 681. where were pre∣sent two hundred eightie and nine bishops: al which though so many in number,* 1.160 and liuing so manie yeeres after Christ, con∣fessed neuerthelesse, that the marriage of Priests was a law∣full thing.

The fift Proposition.

* 1.161The prohibition of marriage in ecclesiastical persons, is not onely against Gods holy ordinance, but withall, the flat doc∣trine of the deuill.

The former part of this proposition, I proue sundrie waies: First,* 1.162 Saint Paul willeth euerie man to haue his wife, and e∣uery [ 1] woman to haue her husband, and that for this end and purpose, to auoid fornication. Out of which words I note first, that where euerie man is named, there doubtlesse no man is excepted. I note secondly, that marriage is a soueraigne me∣dicine [ 2] against fornication, and therefore ought to be vsed of all such, as finde themselues grieued with that disease. And con∣sequently, since that disease is as well incident to persons ec∣clesiasticall as secular, the medicine is as necessarie and as lawful for the one sort, as it is for the other. For which cause Paphnutius spake openly in the councel of Nice, that it was vnlawfull to debarre Bishops and Priests from their wiues, but hereof more at large heereafter.

[ 2] Secondly, S. Paule hauing commended the estate of the vnmarried and widowes,* 1.163 as more conuenient and profitable; doth forthwith wish those that cannot abstaine, to vse the reme∣die

of marriage. And hee yeeldeth this reason, because it is better to marrie then to burne.

Thirdly, marriage is honourable among all, and the vnde∣filed [ 3] bed; but whoremongers and adulterers God wil iudge.* 1.164 Out of which words I note first, that since marriage is honou∣rable in all sorts of men, it ought not to be blamed in persons ecclesiasticall, vnlesse happily which the Apostle perceiued not, their function taketh from them the nature of men. I note se∣condly the antithesis, which the Apostle here maketh, for as adulterie shal be punished in all sorts of people none at all ex∣cepted, euen so must marriage bee honourable in all sorts, no one or other exempted from the same. And where the wound is common to all,* 1.165 there the medicine must not be applied onely to some few: For as Haymo gathereth learnedly, adulterers are therefore iustly punished, because the remedie of wedlocke is granted to them: nowe if this learned writer (who liued aboue 700 yeeres agoe,) conclude effectually out of S. Paul, as euerie indifferent reader will say hee doth, then doubtlesse must it folow necessarily, that either ecclesiastical persons may as lawfully marrie as others; or else that they cannot bee so iustly punished for fornication, as other men ought to be. This illation is so euident,* 1.166 as none with right reason will denie the same

Fourthly, Saint Paul confesseth plainely, that hee hath no authoritie to command single life or verginitie;* 1.167 therefore [ 4] the Pope chalengeth greater authoritie then the Apostle, when he commandeth to abstaine from marriage.

Fiftly, Christ appointeth marriage for all such as are ney∣ther [ 5] eunuches made by men, nor by the impotencie of nature,* 1.168 nor by the gift of continencie; but the pope chargeth them that are eunuches no way, to abstaine from marriage solemnely: therefore the popes commaundement is against Gods holy or∣dinance. Theodoretus confirmeth this point, in these words;* 1.169 Re∣ctè autem posuit illud, prohibentium contrahere matrimonium. Neque enim celibatum ac continentiam vituperat sed eos accu∣sat qui lege lata ea sequi cōpellunt: He put that rightly, forbid∣ding to marry: he blameth not single life & continencie, but ac∣cuseth them that by positiue lawes, compel to put such things

in execution. This lawe therefore of the pope is intolle∣rable.

For which cause saint Clemens auoucheth them to do iniury to nature,* 1.170 that will not vse wedlocke for procreation of chil∣dren.

The latter parte of this proposition the apostle setteth downe so plainely, as it is needelesse to say any more in that behalfe. These are Saint Paules owne wordes: But the spirit speaketh euidently, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith,* 1.171 and shall giue heede vnto spirites of er∣rour, and doctrines of deuilles, which speake lies through hy∣pocrisie, and haue their consciences burned with an hote yron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstaine from meats. In these wordes it is very cleere, that saint Paul termeth the prohibition of marriage and of meates; the flat doctrine of the deuill. For, after hee had declared wherein the mysterie of true religion consisteth, which is taught in the true church of Christ:* 1.172 hee foorthwith giueth euident markes of the mysterie of iniquitie, which is maintained in the false church of Anti∣christ, in whose synagogue the highest points of religion are the prohibition of marriage and of meates. And who seeth not this day, this to bee the state of the church of Rome? as in which church they are specially, and in a manner onely reputed religious, who obey the prohibition of marriage and also of meates.

And it will not helpe the Papistes to say, as their woon∣ted manner is; that they neither prohibite marriage gene∣rally, [ 1] nor as an vnlawfull thing. For first, saint Paul spea∣keth not generally of marriage, but of the precise marriage of Bishoppes, Priests, and Deacons. This doe I prooue, because so soone as hee had declared the duetie of Bishoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, with their wiues and children; by and by in the beginning of the next chapter, hee addeth; that in the latter dayes marriage shall bee prohibited, by the doc∣trine of the deuill. Where the worde (But) doeth effectu∣ally insinuate; that he speaketh precisely of the marriage of ec∣clesiasticall persons by him aboue named.

[ 2] Againe, the words (Forbidding and Commanding) argue

authoritie in them that restraine marriage: and so it partaineth not onely to the old heretikes, the Manichees, the Tatians, the Eucratites, the Marcionists, the Patritians, and the Aposto∣lickes, but much more to the late Popes of Rome, who strict∣ly commaunde the whole world to abstaine from that, whereof God himselfe hath granted the lawfull vse. For what is to bee extolled aboue God,* 1.173 if not to alter and chang his holie words?

Bishops, Priests and Deacons, haue alwaies beene mar∣ried in the East church, euen from our Sauiour Christ, vn∣till these our dayes. This I proue by the testimonie of the sixt generall councell of Constantinople; where 289. Bishoppes were assembled, in the yeare of our Lorde 677. In the thir∣teenth canon of this famous councill, three speciall things are decreed: First, that Priests, Deacons, and subdeacons, may [ 1] haue the lawfull vse of wedlocke, at such times as they do not execute the ministerie. Secondly, this councell excommuni∣cateth all those Priests and Deacons, that after their orders [ 2] put away their former wiues vnder pretence of religion. Thirdly, it excommunicateth all such as labour to separate [ 3] Priests and Deacons, from the vse and companie of their wiues. And after all this, this great synode addeth this wor∣thie and memorable obseruation, to witte,* 1.174 that they haue thus decreed, albeit the lawes of Rome be otherwise. Where I note by the way, that so many learned bishoppes contemned the vsurped primacie of the church of Rome.

I proue it secondly, by the verdict of their owne canon law, which is the flatte opinion of Pope Ʋrban, as their owne Gra∣tian [ 2] telleth vs, his expresse words are these.

Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati,* 1.175 in summos pontifices supra legantur esse pro••oti; non sunt intelligendi de fornicatione, sed de legitimis coniugiis nati, quae sacerdotibus ante prohibiti∣onem vbique licita erant, & in orientali ecclesia vsque hodie eis licere probantur.

When therefore wee reade, that the sonnes of Priests are made Popes, wee must not vnderstand bastardes, but sonnes borne in honest marriage, which marriage was euery where lawfull for Priests, before the (late) prohibition, and is also

lawfull this day in the East Church, for which cause the late councell of Florence, left the marriage of Priests to the free e∣lection of the Greekes. Yea, their owne deare Fryer, and graue archbishoppe Antoninus,* 1.176 confirmeth the same in these words; Quia Graci etiam in sacerdotio coniugio vtuntur. For the Greekes ioyne the vse of matrimonie, euen with the priest∣hood.

* 1.177Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were likewise married in the West and Latin church, for the space almost of foure hun∣dred yeares, without any prohibition at all. And afterward in some places, for many hundreth yeeres. This is the proba∣tion.

After that Christ hadde granted marriage for all men, ap∣pointing such to vse it, for an wholsome medicine, as wanted the gift of continencie; after that Saint Paul had pronounced freely, marriage to bee honourable in all sorts of men; after that the Apostles had decreed, that neither Bishops, Priests, nor deacons, shoulde leaue the companie of their wiues vnder pretence of religion; after that many holy Bishops, priests, and deacons, had liued laudably in the Church, and had vsed the honest hel•• of holy wedlocke aboue three hundreth, eightie and fiue yeares, (al which I haue alreadie proued;) then one Syri∣cius aduaunced to the popedome, in the yeare of Christ 385. seduced by Satan, published wicked doctrine, and prohibited marriage as an vnlawfull thing.* 1.178 Which matter because it is verie impor••ant, and the wordes of our holy father the pope so blasphemous, as hardly anie will beleeue him to haue so written,* 1.179 but hee that readeth the same; I will alleage his wordes at large. Thus therefore doth hee write in expresse tearmes.

Quod dignum, & pudicum, & honestum est, suademus, vt sacerdotes & Leuitae cum suis vxoribus non coeant, quia in ministerio diuino quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur: ad Corinthios namque sic Paulus scribit,* 1.180 Abstinete vos vt vace∣tis orationi: si ergo Laicis abstinentia imperatur, vt possint deprecantes audiri; quanto magis sacerdos vtisque omni mo∣mento paratus esse debet munditiae puritate securus, ne aut sacrificium offerat, aut baptizare cogatur? quisi contamina∣tus

est carnali concupiscentia, quid faciet? excusabitur? qua conscientia exaudiri se credit? cum dictum sit, omnia munda mundis, coinquinatis autem & infidelibus nihil mundum. Qua d••re hortor, moneo, rogo, tollatur hoc opprobrium quod potest iure etiam gentilitas accusare. Infra: qui autem in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt.

Wee councell that, that is meete, chast and honest; that Priests and deacons haue no copulation with their Wiues, because they haue daylie businesse in the diuine ministerie, for Paul writeth thus to the Corinthians; doe yee abstaine, that ye may giue your selues to prayer. If therefore Lay men be com∣manded to abstaine, that they may be heard when they pray, how much more ought a Priest alwaie to be readie in the puri∣tie of cleanelinesse, lest either hee offer sacrifice, or bee constrai∣ned to baptize? who if hee be pulluted with carnall concupi∣scence, what shall hee doe? shall hee bee excused? With what conscience doth hee thinke to bee heard? when it is saide, all things are cleane to the cleane, but to the polluted and infi∣delles nothing is cleane. Wherefore I exhort, admonish, and require, that this rebuke bee taken away, which euen the Gentils may iustly reproue: for they that are in the flesh, can∣not please God.

Out of these words of our disholy Syricius, I note first, [ 1] that when hee came to his popedome hee founde Priests and Deacons married: which I gather out of these wordes (cum suis vxoribus, with their wiues.) I note secondly, that in his time, Priests and Deacons, hadde the vse of holy wedlocke, [ 2] and begatte children: which I gather out of these wordes, (vt sacerdotes & Leuitae cum suis vxoribus non coeant, that Priests and Deacons haue not copulation with their Wiues) For if Priests and Deacons hadde then abstained from co∣pulation with their Wiues,* 1.181 hee needed not to haue forbid∣den the same. I note thirdely, that for the space of three hundreth eightie fiue yeeres (for so long after Christ was Syritius) Bishoppes, Priests, and Deacons were married [ 3] without controlement.

I note fourthly, that this Syritius tearmeth holy wedlocke, the pollution of carnall concupiscence; which I gather out of [ 4]

these wordes, Si contaminatus est carnali concupiscentia, quid faciet? If he be polluted with carnal concupiscence, what shal he do?* 1.182 I adde hereunto, that this is the flat doctrine of the di∣uell; and saint Paul is my witnes therein.

[ 5] I note fiftly, that hee calleth wedlocke such a vice, as the Gentiles may iustly reprooue. Which I gather out of these wordes, Quod potest iure etiam Gentilitas accusare, which the Gentiles may iustly accuse.

[ 6] I note sixtly, that wedlocke is such a carnall thing, as one cannot please God in the same. Which I gather out of these words, Qua conscientia exaudiri se credit▪ With what con∣science doth he thinke to be heard? Out of these wordes also, Qui autem in carne sunt,* 1.183 Deo placere non possunt: but they that are in the flesh, cannot please God. For these are the weightie reasons; by which, and through which, our holy father Syriti∣us, would disswade Bishops and priestes from holy wedlocke: to wit, because marriage is vncleanenesse, filthtenesse, carnall concupiscence; because married men can not bee heard of God; because married men can not please God: which to haue onely recited, is a sufficient confutation.

* 1.184I say in my position, that after the wicked prohibition of Sy∣ritius, priests were afterward married in some places for ma∣ny [ 1] hundreth yeeres. And I prooue the same: First, because two hundred and sixe yeeres after pope,* 1.185 Pelagius the second was content to admit the bishop of Syracusa, although hee were a married man, and had a wife and children. Neither was that Bishop then vrged to forsake the vse of holy wed∣locke.* 1.186 For as cardinall Panormitan telleth them, experience teacheth their prohibition of marriage to be most wicked, as which enforceth their priests to sinne greeuously by vngodly copulation, whereas they might liue chastely with their owne wiues. Their owne Polidore singeth the same song; both their expresse wordes shall be alleadged in the ende of the next chapter.

* 1.187Their owne Gratianus in the before named distinction, doeth inferre out of Pope Pelagius his wordes in this man∣ner:

Siue ergo presbyter, siue diaconus, siue subdiaconus fuerit;

apparet, quod in praefatis ordinibus constituti, licitè matri∣monio vti possunt.

Whether therefore he be priest, deacon, or subdeacon, it is cleare, that such as are within the aforenamed orders, may lawfully haue the vse of matrimonie.

Out of these words of Gratianus, who was a papist, and a great fauourer of the pope; I inferre against the doctrine of the pope, that priestes, Deacons, and Subdeacons, may not onely bee married, but euen while they be married, haue the vse of holie wedlocke, which is a point doubtlesse, verie well woorthie the obseruation. To this testimonie of Gra∣tianus, the papistes cannot possibly frame any answere, vn∣lesse they will crie, fire and faggot, for their owne Doc∣tour.

I prooue it secondly, because Pope Nicholas, who liued [ 2] aboue three hundred yeeres after Pelagius, was so farre from disquieting married priests,* 1.188 that when the Bulgarians com∣plained of that fault so supposed, hee perswaded them to be content, and not to dishonour their married priestes. This the Reader shall finde to bee so, in the popes owne Canon lawe.

I prooue it thirdly, because the constitution of Pelagius [ 3] was of force in Sicilia, onely three yeeres before the pope∣dome of Gregorie the first. Which was more then two hun∣dred yeeres, after the popedome of Syritius. Thus therefore doth pope Gregorie write:

Ante triennium omnium ecclesiarum subdiaconi Siciliae pro∣hibiti fuerant,* 1.189 vt more Romanae ecclesiae suis vxoribus nullate∣nus misceantur; quod mihi durum atque incompetens videtur, vt qui vsum continentiae non inuenit, neque castitatem promi∣sit, compellatur à sua vxore separari.

Three yeeres agoe, all subdeacons in Sicilia were charged to forbeare the vse of holy wedlocke, according to the custome of the Roman church. Which seemeth to me a very hard and vnconuenient thing, that he who neither hath the gift of con∣tinencie, neither hath vowed chastitie, should forcibly be sepa∣rated from his wife.

Out of these wordes I gather first, that the lawes of single [ 1]

life tooke onely place in Sicilia, about three yeeres before the [ 2] time of Gregorie the first. I gather secondly, that it is a dia∣bolicall thing to compel such to forbeare marriage, as neyther haue the gift of continencie, neyther yet haue vowed chastitie. [ 1] Hereupon I inferre these two corollaries: first, that all Bi∣shops and Ministers in our churches, may this day marry law∣fully; [ 2] and that by the iudgement of pope Gregorie. Second∣ly, that the marriage of all secular popish priests, is likewise lawfull; and that by the doctrine of their owne pope Gregory, because none of them are votaries. For to the vowe which they call annexed, they are no more bound in the weast church then in the east. And yet all of the east church are free, as you haue heard in the sixt proposition. But this pope was not con∣stant to him selfe in this point of doctrine, and therefore was his constitution disanulled by the sixt generall synode,* 1.190 about fiftie yeeres after.

* 1.191In other countries, at other times the marriage of priests was abolished. They were maried in Germanie aboue 1000. yeeres together. See Lambertus.

The obiection.

The marriage of bishops and priests was forbidden by the generall councell of Nice: therefore Syricius was not the first author thereof, as who liued almost 100. yeeres after the same.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that satan, who goeth about as a roaring lion, to make a prey of our soules;* 1.192 laboured busily to haue his doctrine established by the famous councel of Nice. For as I haue pro∣ued out of S. Paul, the prohibition of mariage euen in priests is the doctrine of the deuill.

[ 2] I say secondly, that God, who neuer hath beene, is, or will be wanting to his church in necessary points of doctrine; raised vp his seruant holy Paphnutius, a man famous by ma∣nifold miracles in his life time: and that for this end & purpose, that he might gainsay and hinder that wicked and vngodly law, which the fathers assembled at Nice, were about to bring into

the church. I say thirdly, that Paphnutius excited by the spirite of God, stood vp in the midst of the councell, and cried aloud; [ 3] that to forbid marriage to priestes, was too seuere a lawe; be∣cause marriage was honourable in all sortes of men.* 1.193 Thus writeth Cassiodorus; thus writeth Socrates; thus writeth So∣zomenus. I say fourthly, that the lawe which the fathers then thought to haue made, was a new law, neuer heard of before. [ 4] I prooue it, because Socrates hath these expresse words; Visum erat episcopis legem nouam in ecclesiā introducere.* 1.194 The bishops thought indeed, to haue brought a new law into the church. I say fiftly, that the councell was perswaded with Paphnutius his oration, and referred the whole matter to euery priests free [ 5] election, making no law in that behalfe. For Cassiodorus hath these expresse wordes; Synodus{que} laudauit sententiam cius, & nihil ex hac parte sanciuit, sed hoc in vniuscuius{que} voluntate,* 1.195 non in necessitate dimisit. And the Synode cōmended his opi∣nion, and so decreed nothing in the matter; but left it in euerie mans election, to doe what he thought good without compul∣sion. I say sixtly, that Paphnutius affirmed the coniugal actes [ 6] of priestes with their wiues, to be chastitie. I therefore con∣clude, that albeit the bishops in the councell of Nice assembled, woulde indeed haue made a newe and straunge lawe against the marriage of priestes;* 1.196 yet did the spirite of God speaking in Paphnutius, vtterly disswade them from that vngodly purpose.

The replie.

It was somtime lawful for married men to be made priests, (because in the beginning necessitie so required) but it was ne∣uer lawfull for priestes to be married men; and therefore Paph∣nutius pleaded only for the former, alledging the old custome of the church against the latter.

The answere.

I affirme first, that Paphnutius pronounced it an honou∣rable thing, euen for priestes to lie with their lawfully mar∣ried [ 1] wiues. I affirme secondly, that forasmuch as it was lawfull in those dayes for Priestes to marry wiues and to [ 2]

lie with them; (for if it had not been lawful, the councell would not haue yeelded to Paphnutius therein) it must needes follow,* 1.197 that either the pope hath power to alter Gods lawe, which no papist will auouch; or els that it is this day lawfull by Gods law for priestes to marry wiues, and to haue coniugall actes [ 3] with them, as they had in former time. And consequently, that the popes discipline, is the flat doctrine of diuels. I say thirdly, that although Socrates and Sozomenus ascribe it to the old tra∣dition of the church, for vnmarried priestes so to continue; yet doth not Cassiodorus make any mentiō thereof, in his Tripar∣tite collection. And howsoeuer Paphnutius alledged tradition, to mitigate the seuere lawes intended by the councell; yet it is very certaine, that such tradition was neither generall nor di∣uine. I prooue it first, because otherwise the Greeke church [ 1] would haue admitted it, which for all that it neuer did, as is [ 2] already shewed. I prooue it secondly, because the priestes in Bulgaria were married in pope Nicholas his time, and the Subdeacons of Sicilia vntill the daies almost of pope Grego∣rie.* 1.198 [ 3] I prooue it thirdly, because their owne popishe champions and canon law, doe witnesse the same with me. For first, where [ 1] the second councel of Carthage woulde ascribe this obseruation to the doctrine of the apostles and antiquitie;* 1.199 there Gratianus steppeth in and telleth vs, that the apostles taught so by exam∣ple, [ 2] (but not by word.) Againe, their owne glosse affirmeth, that the antiquitie the councell speaketh of, is but from the time of Syritius: These are the expresse wordes of the glosse (For I will neither conceale any thing that maketh for them, neither inuent any thing of mine owne braine to preuaile against them) A tempore Syritij,* 1.200 hic vocat antiquitatem. Antiquitie here na∣med is from the time of Syritius. And a little before, the same glosse hath these memorable wordes; Dicunt, quod ista capita facta fuerunt ante tempus Gregorij qui introduxit continentiam subdiaconibus▪ presbyteris verò & diaconibus Syricius intro∣duxit Imò dicunt quod olim sacerdotes poterant contrahere ante Syricium. They say that these chapters were made before the time of Gregory, who debarred subdeacons of marriage; b••t Syritius made the law against priestes and deacons. Yea, they say that Priestes might of old time haue married, euen till the

of Syritius. Loe,* 1.201 all this diuelish doctrine against the marri∣age of priestes, began of pope Syritius by their owne confes∣sion. Let this be noted.

I say fourthly, that the tradition which Socrates and Sozo∣menus speake of, was by example, and not by doctrine, as both [ 4] Gratianus and the glosse expound them. For these are the ex∣presse wordes of the glosse; Ergo apostoli docuerunt exemplo,* 1.202 & opere, & admonitione, non institutione, vel constitutione. Ther∣fore the apostles taught it by example, deede, and admonition, and not by any law or constitution. And so the Nycene councel, maketh in euery respect against the papistes.

The 6. proposition.

The marriage of moonkes, and other votaries is true and lawfull matrimonie,* 1.203 and cannot be dissolued by the power of man. This proposition consisteth of two partes, as is appa∣rant. Touthing the latter part, no power vpon earth hath au∣thoritie to institute sacramentes, or to alter the same. For no inferiour hath authoritie ouer his superiour, no subiect ouer his Soueraigne, no creature ouer the creator. This point I haue prooued sufficiently, in my booke of Motiues. The diffi∣cultie therefore resteth in the former part, which it remaineth that I prooue.

The papistes assigne two kindes of vowes; to wit, votum simplex ac solenne, a single vow, and a vow solemne. They call that a solemne vow, which moonkes, friers, nunnes, and other religious persons make; and all the rest, they repute vowes simple. This distinction layd as a sound foundation, they e∣rect a manifold building thereupon, in maner and forme follow∣ing.

The first building.

Whosoeuer marrieth after the single vow of continencie, he or she sinneth mortally, but the mariage holdeth, and is of force. Thus teach all popish doctors with vniforme consent. Ange∣lus, Rosilla, Calderinus, Couarrunias, Paludanus, Maior, Silue∣ster; Nauarrus, Fumus, Scotus, Sotus, Aquinas, and the rest. I

will only alledge the wordes of ••umus in the name of all, who writeth in this manner;* 1.204 Secundum impedimentum est votum sim∣plex. Nam qui vouit castitatem simpliciter, si contrahat, morta∣liter peccat, violans fidem deo datam, tame•• tenet matrimonium. The second impediment is a single vow: for hee that voweth chastitie simply, if he afterward marry, committeth a mortall sinne in breaking his promise made to God, but yet the matri∣monie holdeth and is of force.

The second building.

Euery marriage of man and woman made after the solemne vow of approoued religion, is not only damnable in the partie contrahent, but also void and of no force at all. This likewise teach all popish doctors, Aquinas, Couarru••ias, Siluester, Na∣uarre, and the rest. Fumus hath these wordes.

* 1.205Tertium impedimentum est votum non quodcun{que} sed solenne religionis approbatae, siue fuerit professio expresse siue tacitè facta, quia impedit, ne quis possit contrahere matrimonium, & si contrahat, est nullum.

The third impediment is a vow; yet not euery one, but the solemne vow of approoued religion, whether profession bee made expressely or virtually, because it so hindereth as none can marrie; and if they doe marry, such matrimony is none at all. Where note, that the papistes call that only approoued religi∣on, which is confirmed by the pope or bishop of Rome.

The third building.

Matrimonie euen after the solemne vow of religion, is law∣full and of force; so it be done by and with the popes dispensa∣tion. This doctrine is taught vs, by many learned papists, An∣toninus, Richardus, Hugo, Innocentius, Couarruuias, and by the reall practise of sundry popes. Thus writeth Antoninus, whom I alledge in the name of the rest.

* 1.206Papa dispensare potest in statuto concilij vniuersalis. De voto solenni per professionem etiam patet, quod licet papa non possit facere quod professus non fuit professus, potest tamen facere quod non sit obligatus religioni, & ad votum religionis; quiae

in omni voto intelligitur, excepta authoritate papae. Infra; & communiter canonistae tenent quod papa potest dispensare in vo∣to solenni religionis, non quidem tantum vt sit religiosus & non seruet vota; sed de religioso potest facere laicum, ex magna cau∣sa vrgente.

The pope can dispense, in the decrees of a generall councell. It is also cleere, that he can dispense in a solemne vow by pro∣fession. For although the pope cannot make a professed person not to haue been professed, yet can he this doe,* 1.207 that the profes∣sed person shal neither be boūd to his religion, nor to his vow: because we must vnderstand, that in euery vow the popes au∣thoritie is excepted: and the Canonistes doe commonly holde, that the pope can dispense in the solemne vowe of religion, not only that one be still a religious person and keepe not his vow; but of a religious person hee can make a meere lay man, vpon an vrgent cause.

The fourth building.

A solemne vow hath not force of it selfe, and of it owne na∣ture, to dissolue matrimonie, and to make the solemne vota∣ries vncapable thereof: but all the force and efficacie it hath therein, is wholly deriued from the ordinance of the church of Rome. This teacheth their owne deere frier, and reuerend bi∣shop Iosephus Angles, whose doctrine is approoued by the late popes of Rome. Thus therefore doth Iosephus write:

Ratio praecisa ob quam votum solenne dirimit matrimonium contrahendum, & vouentes solenniter inhabilitat,* 1.208 est ecclesiae institutio; quae vt consanguineos intra quartum gradum, ita huiusmodi personas ad contrahendum inhabilitat. Definita est a Bonifacio 8. cap. vnico, de vo••o in 6. vbi solum constituit Rom. pontif. discrimen inter votum solenne, & matrimonium. Deinde quia possit ecclesia instituere, vt in mundo nullum sit votū solēne matrimoniū dirimens; quare voti solennitas est ab ecclesia, & nō a deo; ex nullo enim loco sacrae scripturae colligitur inhabilitas vouentis solenniter, vt contrahere non possit. Nam per traditio∣nem quae fit in voto solenni, non est ex iure diuino & naturali inhabilis vouens adalium statum▪ quia subdiaconus & diaconus tradunt se deo voto solenni castitatis & obedientiae, & tamen papa cum illis saepissimê dispensat, vt Soto concedit.

The precise reason, for which a solemne vow dissolueth ma∣trimonie to bee contracted,* 1.209 and disableth those that solemnely vow it, is the institution of the church (of Rome,) which as it inableth kinsfolkes within the fourth degree to contract mar∣riage, so doth it also the said votaries. Bonifacius the eight hath so defined, where the bishop of Rome onely appointeth the dif∣ference, betweene a solemne vow and matrimonie. Againe, be∣cause the church (of Rome) might make a law, that no solemne vow in the worlde should dissolue wedlocke; wherefore the so∣lemnitie of the vow is of the church, and not of God. For the inabilitie of the solemne vower, so as he cannot marrie, is not gathered out of any place of the holy scripture. For by the tra∣dition which is in the solemne vow, the person vowing is not inabled to another state, either by the law diuine, or law of na∣ture; because Deacons, and Subdeacons deliuer vp them∣selues to God, by the solemne vow of chastitie and obedience; and for all that, the pope often dispenseth with them, as Soto graunteth.

Nauarrus auoucheth constantly, and without blushing, that many popes haue dispensed, de facto, with professed moonkes, and that in the way of marriage; these are his wordes:

* 1.210Papa potest dispensare cum monacho iam professo, vt contra∣hat matrimonium; imò de facto multi papae dispensarunt.

The pope can dispense with a moonke already professed, that he may become a married man. For many popes, de facto, haue dispensed so.

Couarruuias, Richardus, Paludanus, Scotus, Caietanus, and Antoninus, hold the selfe same opinion.

The fift building.

The vow single is of one and the same nature with the vow solemne, not distinguished by any essentiall but meere acciden∣tall difference. For thus writeth their owne Iosephus Angles.

* 1.211Votum solenne & simplex, ex parte subiecti specie acciden∣tali differunt, propterea quod voti simplicis subiectum est ad cō∣trahendum matrimonium habile, licet contrahendo peccet. At verò subiectum voti solennis, est ad contractum matrimonialem

inhabile, transgressiones voti simplicis & solemnis eiusdem spe∣ciei sunt, etiamsi qui solenniter vouet grauius peccet: ratio est, quia specifica differentia actuum est penes obiecta; & cum idem sit vtriusque voti obiectum, nempe seruare continentiam, erunt actus eiusdem speciei, erit tamen voti solemnis transgressio gra∣uior, ratione perfectioris status.

The vow solemne and single differ accidentally in respect of the subiect,* 1.212 because the subiect of the single vow is able to con∣tract matrimonie, albeit he sinne in so contracting: but the sub∣iect of a solemne vow, is inabled to matrimoniall contract: the transgressions of the vowe single and solemne are of the same nature or kind, albeit hee that maketh the solemne vow, sinneth more grieuously: the reason is, because the specificall dif∣ference of acts, resteth in the obiects; and since there is one ob∣iect of both the vowes, to wit, to keepe chastitie▪ the acts shall bee of the same nature or kinde; neuerthelesse, the trans∣gression of the solemne vow shall be greater, by reason of the perfecter state.

Thus reasoneth Frier Ioseph, after the opinion of other po∣pish doctours: and his discourse is euident, because euerie specificall difference morall, ariseth of the obiects; and con∣sequently, since the obiect of vow single is one and the same with the vowe solemne, the difference betweene them can no way be essentiall.

The sixt building.

All secular Priests are so free from the solemne vow, annex∣ed by the church of Rome to ecclesiasticall orders, as their mar∣riage is perfect and of force, notwithstanding the supposed dis∣soluing impediment thereof. I proue it first, because Scotus, Nauarre, Iosephus Angles and others doe grant, that this vow is onely annexed by the ordinance of the church, as shall [ 1] appeare more at large in the ende of this chapter.

I prooue it secondly, because if the secular priests ••••e vo∣taries, their vowe must either be by the worde spoken, or by the deede done: not the first,* 1.213 because no such word can be pro∣ued; [ 2] neither the second, because if the art it selfe in taking or∣ders, shoulde be the vowe annexed; it would follow thereupon

necessarily, that the Greekes likewise should become votaries, as who doe the selfe same thing. Who for all that were neuer votaries, as Gratianus, Syluester, and other popish doctours do affirme. I proue it thirdly, because when two things are essentially and really distinguished, the grant of the one doth necessarily include the graunt of the other: and yet is the so∣lemne vow of chastitie,* 1.214 essentially and really distinct from sa∣cred orders; as I haue proued out of Iosephus in the fourth building, and as is apparant by Nauarre in his Enchiridion. Gratian their owne doctour maketh this case cleere: see his as∣sertion in the next chapter, in the answere to the first obiection.

The seauenth building,

The solemne vowe of chastitie imposed onely by the power of man, cannot alter the institution of God, and take away the liberty by him granted vnto man. For proofe hereof, their own deare fryer Antoninus, some time archbishoppe of Florence, shall suffice, who telleth our holy father the Pope, that God is his superiour, and that he therefore cannot alter any one i••te of his law: these are his expresse words.

* 1.215Quantum verò ad illa quae sunt de iure naturali vel diuino iurisdictio seu potestas papalis non se extendit, sic verò quod i∣sta possit mutare, vel etiam dare eis vim obligandi: & ratio est quia inferior non potest mutare leges superioris: Deus autem superior ad papam.

Concerning those things which are of the law of nature, or law diuine, iurisdiction or papall power doth not extend it self, so to wit, that the pope can change these things, or giue power obligatiue vnto them: and the reason is, because an inferi∣our cannot change the laws of his superior, and God is superi∣our [ 1] to the Pope. Franciscus a Victoria, and other learned Pa∣pists hold the same opinion, but Antoninus his testimonie is sufficient.

The proofe of the proposition.

This foundation and these seauen buildings onely conside∣red, my proposition afore rehearsed will be cleare and manifest:

for first, if single life be only imposed by the law of man, as the seauenth building proueth; secondly, if secular priests can no [ 1] way be proued votaries, as in the sixt building is shewed; third¦ly, [ 2] if the vow single be of one and the selfe same nature with the [ 3] solemne, differing only accidentally from it as the fift building [ 4] affirmeth; fourthly, if the solemne vow hath not force of it selfe [ 5] to dissolue marriage, as the fourth building teacheth; fiftly, if the popes dispensation can make marriage of force, after the so¦lemn vow, as the third building conuinceth; sixtly, if marriage made after the single vow, be of force, as the first building de∣clareth euidently, (which single vow for all that, is of the same essence and nature with the solemne vow, as is already said: I conclude with this ineuitable illacion, that the marriage not on∣ly of secular priests, but euen of Monks, Fryers, and all reli∣gious votaries, is sound, perfect, and of force.

An important obiection, against the sixt proposition.

Refuse the youger widowes, for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ, they will marrie, hauing damna∣tion because they haue broken the first faith.* 1.216 This place of S. Paule, sundrie of the fathers expound of the vow of chastitie, neither can it possibly admit any other sence.

The answere.

I say first, that though sundrie of the fathers thinke it sinne to marrie after the vow of chastitie, and that by reason of this [ 1] place, yet doth the same fathers repute such marriages, to be true and perfect matrimonie: for saint Epiphanius writeth in this manner.

Melius est ita{que} vnum peccatum habere, & non plura: melius est lapsum à cursu, palam sibi vxorem sumere secundum legem, & à virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere & sic rur∣sus ad ecclesiam induci, velut qui mala operatus est,* 1.217 velut lap∣su•• & fractum, & obligatione opus habentem; & non quoti∣die occultis iaculis sauciari ab improbitaete quae à Diabolo ipsi infertur.

It is better therfore to haue one sin, & not many: it is better for one that is fallen from his course, openly to marrie a wife, according to the law, and to repent a long time from his vir∣ginitie,

and so to be restored againe into the church, as one tha hath done wickedly, as one that is fallen and broken, and hath need of binding vp, and not to be daily wounded with the se∣cret darts of that wickednes which the diuell putteth in him. Thus writeth Epiph••nius, shewing plainely to the reader, that he condemneth not the marriage in vowed persons, monkes, or nunnes, but the falling from their gudly purpose.

S. Cyprian hauing sharply inueyed against the licen••ious life of certaine deacons and vowed virgins, exhorteth them at the length to marry, that cannot, or wil not liue continent & chast: these are his words:* 1.218 Quod si ex fide se Christo dedi••auerunt, pudicè & caste sine vlla fabula perseuerent; ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent si autem perseuerare nolunt, vel non possunt▪ melius est nubant quam inignem delictis suis cadant.

If they haue betrothed themselues to Christ by faith, let them continue honestly and chastely without all mockerie; so as they may in fortitude and stabilitie expect the reward of vir∣ginitie: but if they wil not, or cannot perseuere; it is better that they marry, then that they fall into the fire with their misbeha∣uiour. Thus saith saint Cyprian, declaring very plainely, that he approoueth the marriages of affianced and vowed virgines.

S. Austen, although he vnderstand by the first faith, the vow of chastitie; yet doth he flatly allow marriage after the breach thereof:* 1.219 these are his expresse wordes: Hoc dico nubere licet antequam voueat, superbire nunquam licet. O tu virgo Dei, nu∣bere noluisti quod licet, extollis te quod non licet. Melior virgo humilis, quam maritata humilis; sed melior maritata humilis, quam virgo superba Que autem resp••xerit ad nuptias, non quod voluit nubere damnatur, sed quod iam ante recesserat & fit vx∣or Loth respiciendo retrorsum This I say, it is lawful to mar∣ry before she vow, it is neuer lawful to be proud. O thou virgin of God, thou wouldst not marry, which is lawful for thee to do,* 1.220 but thou waxest prou••, which thou maist not do. An humble virgin is better then an humble maried woman; but an humble maried woman is better then a proud virgin. Yet she that hath looke•• backe to marriage, is damned; not because shee would marry, but because she had alredy departed (from her holy pur∣pose) and is become Lots wife, in looking backe againe.

The same S. Augustine hath in another place of his works such a plaine declaration of his mind in this point, as whosoe∣uer shall once reade or heare his words, cannot but perceiue the same. Thus therefore doth he write expressely, I wil not alter or change one word. Postremò, damnantur tales,* 1.221 non quia con∣iugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia cōtinentiae primam fi∣dem irritam fecerunt. Quod vt breuiter insinuaret Apost. no∣luit eas dicere habere damnaetionem, quae postamplioris sanctita∣tis propositum nubunt, non quiae non damnentur, sed ne in eis ip∣sae nuptiae damnari putarentur. Infra: proinde qui dicunt ta∣lium nuptias non esse nuptias, sed potius adulteria, non mihi vi∣dentur satis acutè ac diligenter considerare quid dicant. In fine, such are damned, not because they are afterward marri••d, but because they haue made void the first promise of chastity: which thing the Apostle intending briefly to insinuate, would not say that they were damned, who marie after the purpose of larger sanctimonie, not bicause they are not damned, but lest he shuld seeme to condemn their marriages in them: therfore they that say the marriages of such are no marriages, but rather adulte∣ries; seeme to mee, not to consider exactly and aduisedly what they say. By which words of S. Austen it is cleare, that he is so far from cōdemning the matrimonies of those v••tiue wi∣dowes, which cannot liue continently as hee reputeth them for perfect, true, and lawfull marriages.

I say secondly, that marriage after a solemne vow, ought to be deemed perfect & of force, euen with the Pope himselfe:* 1.222 for thus is it written in his owne canon law; votum simplex apud deum non minus ligat, quam solemne: the simple or single vow bindeth no lesse afore God, then doth the solemne: and yet as I haue already proued, marriage is perfit after the single vow, e∣uen by the popes alowance; therfore with no reasō can he denie it to be perfit also, after the double or solemne vow: for vnlesse the pope wil impudently say, y^t his power is greter then gods, he must perforce admit this to be so. And it is a friuolous sup∣posed euasion to say, that there is a deliuery of the party in the vow solemne, not so in the single: for thus writeth their owne doctor Scotus. Alia ratio est, quod vouens solemniter,* 1.223 mittit in possessionem illum cui vouit solemniter, vouens autem priuaté;

non, sed quasi promittit: sed haec valet minus quam secunda, quia omnia intrinseca voto, vt respicit actum voluntatis, per quem ob ligat se vouendo, & transfert dominium suum in alterum; omnia inquam, istae sunt aequalia hinc iude. Igitur non magis datio hic, quam ibi; nec promissio ibi, quam hic. Another reason is this; that he who makes a solemne vow, puts him to whom he vow∣eth, in possession; but so doth not he that maketh a single vow, but only giueth his promise. This reason is worse then the se∣cond; for al things that be of the substance of the vow, as a vow concerneth the act of the mind, whereby the mind bindes it selfe by vowing, & transposeth the ownership of it selfe to another, al these things I say, are of like weight on either side: therfore there is no more deliuerie in the vow solemne, then in the sin∣gle; nor more promise in the one then in the other.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that the widows whose vowes Paul admit∣teth, [ 1] must be no lesse then 60. yeres of age; but the pope bids al to take the mantle & the ring, at what age they list. S. Paul [ 2] would haue them then to promise, when the heat of lust is past; but the pope aduiseth them to come, euē when lust rageth most [ 3] of all. S. Paul would first haue them try their strength, & then to promise; but the pope bids promise roundly, thogh they per∣forme [ 4] neuer so slenderly. S. Paul willed the promise of single life, because they could not both serue the church and their hus∣bands; but the pope requireth the vow of single life, thereby [ 5] pharisaically to merit heauen. S. Paul exhorts the yonger wi∣dows to vse marriage, as a soueraine remedy against sin; but y^e pope inforceth the yongest of al, to contemn marriage as a pol∣luted [ 6] & vnlawful thing. S. Pauls widowes were godly occu∣pied in ministring to the sicke, to the poorer sort, yea & to stran∣gers in way of christian hospitality; but the popes so supposed virgins, are free from al honest exercise, & liue idely, after their owne sensual pleasures: & so the popes counterfeit and hypo∣critical Nuns, haue no affinitie with S. Pauls holy widowes.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that the first faith whereof S. Paul speakes, may very fitly be vnderstood of the promise made in baptisme. And I proue it, because the first promise of these widows was this; to wit, that they would continue in christian religion, & in the puritie of honest life & good maners. The second faith or

promise was that, which these widowes made when they were married, to wit, that they would be louing, diligent, carefull, & obedient to their husbands; and aboue all the rest, keep their coniugall faith. The third faith was that, which these widowes made to the bishop & the whole church; to wit, that they would execute their deaconship honestly & faithfully, & constantly per∣seuer therein to the end. The yonger widowes waxing wanton against Christ, did not only breake their last promise, forsaking the ministery of the church: but their first and most holy promis made in baptisme, while they departing from the purity of ho∣nest life and religion, consecrated themselues to paganisme and infidelitie, and so purchased to themselues Gods wrath & eter∣nal damnation.* 1.224 Therefore the apostle maketh no mention of a∣ny vow, but only reproueth vnconstant women, who being re∣lieued a long time by the common tresure of the congregation, to minister to the sicke persons, did afterward both forsake their promise & Christ too, and became heathens running after sa∣tan. For this is euident by the words of the 15. verse of the 5. chapter, from whence the obiection is taken: where the apostle saith, that some widowes are already turned back (from Christ their guide, to whom they had dedicated thēselues in baptisme, & folowed) after satan. It wil not serue the papists to say after their wonted maner, that marriage breaketh not our promise made in baptisme.* 1.225 For albeit the faith of baptisme be not brokē by marrying absolutely and simply, yet is it indeede broken by marrieng against Christ; that is, by marrying in such maner, as they renounce christianitie. And this my answer is confirmed, because, if the apostle had meant otherwise, he would haue cal∣led it the last faith, and not the first.

I say fiftly, that these words (for when they shall wax wan∣ton against Christ, they wil marry) do euidently proue, that S. [ 5] Paul meaneth the promise made in baptisme: and I desire the gentle reader to marke my discourse attentiuely: for this obiec∣tion is the bulwarke, to defend this article of poperie.

I therefore note first, that these foure things are really distin∣guished [ 1] in S. Paul; to wit, the waxing wanton of the widows; the marriage of the widowes; the damnation of the widowes; and the breach of their faith.

[ 2] I note secondly, that the wantonnes of the widows, was be∣fore their marriage; for so the apostle saith expresly.

[ 3] I note thirdly, that the widowes promised in their baptisme to keepe Gods holy commaundements, among which one is this: Non concupisces, Thou shalt not lust.

* 1.226 [ 4] I note fourthly, y^t the breach of euery commandement, deser∣ueth eternal death. For so saith the apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:* 1.227 for y^e reward of sin is death. And another scripture saith;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.228〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Accursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this lawe,* 1.229 in doing them: for as saint Iames saith, though a man keep all the residue of the law,* 1.230 yet if he offend in any one point, he becom∣meth guiltie of all.

I note fiftly, that by Gods law we are bound to refer all our [ 5] workes, all our words, and al our thoughts, to his honour and glory (for so teacheth his apostle:) and consequently, that the wantonnes of the yonger widowes, was a breach of Gods ho∣ly laws.* 1.231 These points obserued, I conclude, that the yonger widows had damnation, not for marrying, but for being wan∣ton before their marriage. For in being wanton against Christ, they brake their first faith made in baptisme, that is, they perfor¦med not that obedience they promised in baptisme; & in not per∣forming that obedience they deserued eternal death; and so they had damnation, bicause they were wanton against Christ. S. Paul saith not, that they had damnation bicause they married, (which must be wel marked) but bicause they made voide their first faith in breaking Gods cōmandements, as ye haue heard.

[ 6] I say sixtly, that saint Paul is so far from condemning mar∣riage, in the yonger widowes after their promise or vow which the papists would most willingly father vpon him, as he exhor∣teth them to marry, euen after such their promise or vowe. I prooue it, (note wel what I say) because so soone as hee hath willed the yonger widowes to marry in the 14. verse; foorth∣with in the 15. verse, he yeeldeth the reason of that his aduise, to wit, because certaine are already turned backe after Satan. Now, in the 15. verse he must needs speake of such widowes,

as were receiued into the ministerie of the church; because none could be turned backe from that, to which they neuer were ad∣mitted: he therfore speaketh likewise of the betrothed widows, in the next verse before; which I make euident three wayes; first, because otherwise his illation in the 15. verse, shoulde be [ 1] foolish & friuolous; foolish, because it could haue no connexion with the 14. verse; friuolous, for that it could not conclude his purpose: secondly, because he had already in the 11. verse char∣ged [ 2] the bishop Timothy, not to receiue any widow vnder the age of 60. yeeres. This conclusion therefore being made touching the widowes not yet admitted, he goeth forward and giueth his aduise, for the yonger widowes then receiued of the church: as if he had saide; for as much as some of the yonger sort haue alreadie beene wanton and followed sathan, and there is also danger in the rest: I decree, that hereafter none vnder 60. yeares be receiued; and I exhort the yonger alreadie re∣ceiued and desirous to marrie, to betake themselues to holie wedlocke, to bring forth children, to be housewiues, and so to giue no occasion to the aduersarie to speake euill. Thirdly, [ 3] because otherwise Saint Paul should equiuocate verie grosse∣ly, in one and the selfe same reason: giuing one signification to the same word in the premisses, & an other in the consecution. Thus much of this obiection in special, and of the mariages of Bishops, priests, deacons, and religious persons, in generall: as also of the first ••rohibition against the same. It nowe re∣maineth for the complement of this discourse, that I solue cer∣taine obiections made generally against this doctrine, for which shalbe assigned the next chapter.

CHAP. IIII. Of certaine generall obiections against the marriages of Priests, with briefe solutions of the same.

The first obiection.

BE sanctified therefore and be holy,* 1.232 for I am holy (your lord and God:) I answer, that al the Israelits were commanded to be sanctified & to be holy, aswel as were the priests, and so▪ if this argument were of force in popish sence, al people aswel as priestes, shoulde abstaine from the vse of holy wedlocke, yea, the priests were euen then married, as is already proued.

The second obiection.

I would haue you without care: the vnmarried careth for the things of the lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things of the world,* 1.233 how hee may please his wife: therefore priests ought not to be married.

The answere.

I say first, that S. Paul preferreth the state of the vnmar∣ried, [ 1] before the condition of the married. For he saith indeede, that the vnmarried doth better, if he can so continue, albeit in marrying he sinneth not:* 1.234 yet this is not in respect of any holi∣nes that resulteth out of single life, but because the vnmarried is more free from the cares of the world, and so more apt for∣studie & the seruice of God. I say secondly, that S. Paul neuer [ 2] meant to enforce any person, either to be married, or to leade a single life, & therfore did he say that he sought for the cōmodity of the Corinthians, but not to entangle thē in the snare: as if he had said, if I shuld go about to bar you of mariage, I shuld tan¦gle you in a snare. I say thirdly, y^t a man may be as holy in ma∣riage, [ 3] as if he liued vnmarried to his liues end, which S. Hie∣rome though a great patron of single life, both grauely consi∣dered, and sincerely acknowledged: for he saith, that Abraham pleased God no lesse in wedlocke, then virgins doe in their sin∣gle life: these are his expresse words, as the popish canon law reciteth them:* 1.235 Abraham placuit in coniugio sicut nunc virgi∣nes placent in castitate: seruiuit ille legi & tempori suo serui∣amus & nos legi & tempori nostro, in quos fines coelorum deue∣nerunt. Abraham pleased (God) in marriage, euen as virgins now please in chastity: hee serued the law and his time; let vs also vpon whom the ends of the world is come, serue the law & our time. Yea S. Nazianzene saith, that his father being a bishop, was greatly holpen in pietie by his wife: & the same S. Gregory saith in another place,* 1.236 that neither marriage nor single life, doth either ioyne vs to God or to the world, or withdraw vs from god, or from the world. This is confirmed by S. Chry∣sostome in these words:* 1.237 Nuptiae licet difficultatis in se plurimum habeant, ita tamen assumi possunt, vt perfectiori vitae impedi∣mento non sint.* 1.238 Although marriage haue great trouble in it self, yet may it so be vsed as it shalbe no hindrance to per••••t life. S.

Austen after that he had auouched holy life to be nothing aba∣ted,* 1.239 in holy Samuel and Zacharias by reason of their marria∣ges: by and by he addeth these words: Qua ergo ratione accu∣satur quod minime obesse probatur? & quis neget bonum debere dici, quod neminem laedit. How therefore is that thing accused, which is proued to do no hurt? & who denieth that that ought to be called good, which bringeth harme to none? S. Clemens Alexandrinus giueth a sufficient solution to this obiection,* 1.240 in these expresse words: Annon permittitur etiam ei qui vxorem duxit, vna cum cōiugio etiam esse solicitum de iis quae sunt domi∣ni? sequitur: ambae enim sunt sanctae in domino: haec quidem vt vxor, illa verò vt virgo: cannot she also that is married toge∣ther with hir marriage, seeke the things that pertaine to the Lord? for they both are holy in the lord: this as a wife, she as a virgin. Nicephorus though he were caried away with sundry er∣rors of his time,* 1.241 yet doth he make S. Gregory who was a mar∣ried bishop, equal with S. Basill his brother who led a single life: these are his words: Et quamuis is coniugē habuerit, rebus tamen aliis fratri minimè cessit: & though he were married, yet was he nothing inferior to his brother in other things. In fine, S Ambrose saith thus:* 1.242 Quid ergo dicimus si virgines de deo co∣gitant & iunctae viris demundo, qu espes relinqutur nubentibus apud deum? si enim ita est, dubium est de salute eorum: nam vide∣mus virgines de seculo cogitare, & matrimonio iunctos domini∣cis studere operibus. What therfore say we, if virgins think of god, and the married of the world, what hope haue the married with God? for if it be so, their saluation is in doubt: for we see that virgins do thinke of the world, and that married men are careful for the works of the Lord.

The third obiection.

Defraude not one another but for praier sake, saith S. Paul ergo priests that must euer pray, must euer abstaine.

The answere.* 1.243

I say first that S. Paul doth here shew the necessity of mar∣riage, in that he disswadeth not from abstinence saue onely for praier sake. I say secondly, that priests must not euer be occu∣pied in prayer no more then lay men: their nature and condi∣on, requireth conuenient recreation.

I say thirdly, that y^e apostle speaketh not here of euery kind [ 3] of praier, but of extraordinary praier, appointed for vrgent ex∣traordinary causes: which kinde of praiers, must alwaies haue fasting ioyned with them, as the apostle doth expressely say: and so if the papistes will needes haue the apostle to speake of vsuall and daily praier, then must their priestes vsually and dai∣ly fast;* 1.244 which I weene their fatted headed moonkes will neuer agree vnto, or at least neuer put in practise. Yea they must con∣tinually absteine from wine, for so the law required.

The fourth obiection.

When Dauid to satisfie his hunger being vrgent, required of Abimelech the priest,* 1.245 some cakes of bread, or what els came to hand; Abimelech answered that hee had no common bread: but if he and his companie were not polluted with women hee would giue them hallowed bread. Now it is cleere, that A∣bimelech meant of their lawfull wiues, because hee coulde not suspect holy Dauid, to haue been polluted with naughtie women. If therefore lawfull wedlocke did so pollute secular persons, that for the vse therof, they might not eate the Shew bread: how much more shall the vse of wedlocke pollute priests of the new testament, that they may not eate Christes body in the holy masse?

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that how holy your Masse is, shal by Gods grace [ 2] appeare in conuenient place. I say secondly, that wedlocke is an honourable and vndefiled bed, and therefore cannot pol∣lute such persons, as vse the same lawfully and in the feare of God. Yea if the vse thereof had not been lawfull, euen in Bi∣shops and other ministers of the church; holy Paphnutius durst not haue defended the same publikely, in the presence of so ma∣ny learned men at Nice: who for all that did so, and was ther∣fore not onely highly commended, but the whole councell als∣agreed to his godly motion. I say thirdly, that there were ma∣ny [ 3] legall contamination, aswel in men as in women, (whereof

who list may see at large in Leniticus,) but neither was the lawfull matrimoniall act reputed any of them;* 1.246 neither do those legall ceremonies concerne vs of the newe testament, but the true puritie signified by the same; that is, Christian purificati∣on wrought in the bloud of Christ Iesus, and apprehended by a true, sincere, and liuely faith. I say fourthly, that many legal contam••nations were no other sinnes, then the manifold popish [ 4] irregularities, then nocturne pollutions done without consent of the patient: which neuerthelesse the best learned papistes will haue to be no sinne at all. I say fiftly, that Abimelech in∣quired of cleannesse from women, not in respect of the coniu∣gall [ 5] act; but for many other contaminations, which might haue happened by comming neere to any woman in her monethly course. For not only the woman her self was thereby vncleane in lawe and legall ceremonie, but also all such as touched her clothes, her bed, her seate, or whatsoeuer els. Which inquisi∣tion Abimilech made, least hee shoulde seeme to contemne the law: that so Dauid if perhaps he had been any way polluted le∣gallie, might haue had (saltem desiderio) purification accor∣dingly. I say sixtly, that the high priest in the olde lawe was married, and begate children, and that euen in those daies [ 6] when he ministred to the Lord: for he was bound to offer vp in∣cense on the altar, of sweete perfume, that was neere the arke of testimonie before the mercy seate;* 1.247 not this day or that day onely, but euery morning and euery euening throughout their generations for euer. Since therefore the high priestes marri∣age and coniugall acts, were nothing preiudiciall to his holy function; it followeth consequently, that neither can holy wed∣locke be now preiudiciall, to the ministerie of the newe Testa∣ment.

The fift obiection.

The councels of Carthage, Toledo, Agatha, and some o∣thers, haue flatly prohibited the marriage of priestes: which doubtlesse they would neuer haue done, if it had been a lawfull thing.

The answere.

I say first, that mans authoritie cannot abridge & take away [ 1]

from man, that libertie which God himselfe hath graunted vn∣to man. For the inferior cannot alter the law of his superior, as is already prooued. I say secondly, that though the pope and his late councels, doe roundly impose lawes against holy wed∣locke; [ 2] yet doth S. Paule plainly confesse, that hee hath no au∣thoritie so to doe. Praeceptum inquit, domini non habeo, consiliū autem do: I haue no commandement of the Lord, but I giue mine aduise.* 1.248 I say thirdly, that the councell of Agatha doth [ 3] euidently insinuate, that the prohibition of priestes marriages was but of late yeares.* 1.249 These are the wordes of the councell; Presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi, vel deinceps, quibus ducendi vxores licentia modo non est, etiam aliarum nuptiarum euitent conuiuia. Priests, deacons, subdeacons, and the rest, who this day haue not licence to marry, must not be present at the feasts of other marriages.

This councell was holden in Narbon, about 439. yeares af∣ter Christ, which was 51. yeares after Pope Syricius, who first abandoned the mariage of priestes as I haue prooued.* 1.250 To which time this councell of Agatha alludeth, when it saith; (who are now debarred from marriage:) as if it had said; Be∣fore they might haue married, but now it is forbidden them. I say fourthly, that their owne deere Gratian in his glosse vpon [ 4] pope Martins wordes, confesseth matrimonie to be of so great force, euen in deacons that marry after their orders: that nei∣ther the popes decree, nor the vow by him annexed to orders, is able to dissolue the same. These are his expresse wordes; Si vero diaconus a ministerio cessare voluerit, contracto matrimo∣nio licitè potest vti;* 1.251 nam etsi in ordinatione sua castitatis votū obtulerit, tamen tanta est vis in sacramento coniugij, quod nec ex violatione voti potest dissolui ipsum coniugium. But if a deacon will cease from the ministerie, hee may lawfully haue the vse of wedlocke contracted in time of his deaconship: for al∣though he offered the vow of chastitie when he tooke orders, yet so great is the force of matrimonie, that it cannot be dissolued by breaking the vow. Out of which words I note two things; the one, that Gratian speaketh of that matrimonie, which dea∣cons contract after they be made deacons: the other, that such matrimonie is perfect & of force, notwithstāding y^e vow annexed

by popish law. To which I adde other two thinges: first, that Gratian auoucheth S. Austen to be of his opinion,* 1.252 whose wordes he alledgeth in the next canon. Secondly, that since marriage is of force after orders in a deacon, it is so also in sub∣deacons, priestes, and the rest. The reason is euident, because the vow is of the same force in all: neither can or will any lear∣ned papist say the contrary.

I say fiftly, that it skilleth not much what many councels say; as I haue prooued at large in my booke of Motiues: yet here I adde one decree out of one of their councels, which ma∣keth [ 5] the controuersie manifest. Thus therefore appointeth the first councel holden at Toledo or Toletanum.

Si quis habens vxorem fidelis concubinam habeat, non commu∣nicet. Caeterum is qui non habet vxorem, & pro vxore concubi∣nam habet, a communione nō repellatur,* 1.253 tantum vt vnius mu∣lieris, aut vxoris, aut concubinae, vt ei placuerit, sit coniunctio∣ne contentus.

If anie of the faithfull hauing a wife haue also a Concubine, let him not receiue the holy communion: but hee that hath no wife, and keepeth a concubine in steed of his wife, let him be ad∣mitted to the communion; yet so as hee be content with one onely, either woman, wife, or concubine, as pleaseth him. Loe, this councell giueth a man free libertie, to keepe woman, wife, or concubine at his pleasure, so he be content with one at once. Neither doth it forbid such an one, to receiue the holie communion. Yet it prohibiteth euery priest from the commu∣nion, that keepeth his lawfull wife: but the famous councels of Nice and Constantinople, were of another minde as I haue prooued.

The 6. obiection.

Vow saith the prophet, and performe vnto the Lord your God, all ye that be round about.* 1.254 Therefore priestes and reli∣gious men and women which haue vowed, cannot marrie at all.

The answere.

I say first, that this obiection can at the most prooue onely [ 1] this, euen by popish doctrine; to wit that such as vow chastitie cannot marry without sinne: but not that their marriages bee not of force, or not true marriages indeed. I prooue it euident∣ly, because marriages after simple or single vowes, be of force with them, and reputed as they are, for true marriages indeed. And this obiection speaketh of such vowes, because the scrip∣ture is nothing acquainted with popish solemne vowes.

I say secondly, that they are not only true marriages and of [ 2] force, but also contracted lawfully and without sinne. I prooue it,* 1.255 because as it is sin to make ill vowes, so is it lawful to break the same, and double sinne to performe them. This is euident in Iephthe, who to accomplish his vow, became the murderer of his own only daughter. In wicked king Herode the Tetrarch, who for sake of his vow beheaded S. Iohn the baptist. In the fourtie Iewes, who to performe their bloudie vow, say in wait to destroy S. Paule. These wicked votaries, as they sinned most greeuously in making their vowes; so did they iterate their sinne in performing the same. Who neuerthelesse shoulde haue sinned but once, if after the making of their vngodly vowes, they had ceased from the performance thereof. For which cause holy Bernard aduiseth his sister grauely, not to keepe and performe any ill vow.* 1.256 Thus doth he write; Re∣scinde fidem in malis promissis: In turpi voto muta decretum. Malum quod promisisti, non facias; Quod incautè vouisti, nō impleas; Impia est promissio, quae scelere adimpletur. Breake thy faith in euill promises;* 1.257 chaunge thy purpose in vnhonest vowes: doe not that euill which thou hast promised; performe not that which thou hast rashly vowed. That promise is wicked which is performed with wickednesse. S. Isidorus hath the selfe same resolution concerning ill vowes, as hee is alledged by Gratian. S. Bede after he had largely discoursed vpon euil pro∣mises, and withall shewed that it is better euen to be periured, then to performe naughtie and wicked promises; alledged for the confirmation of his opinion,* 1.258 the fact of holy Dauid in the death of Nabal. These are his wordes: Deni{que} iurauit

Dauid per Deum, occidere Nabal virum stultum & impium, at{que} omnia quae ad eum pertinebant demoliri; sed ad primam interces∣sionem Abigail foeminae prudentis mox remisit minas, reuocauit ensemin vaginam, ne{que} aliquid culpae se pro taliperiurio contra∣xisse doluit. Finally, Dauid sware by God, that he would kill Nabal a foolish & wicked man, & that he would destroy all his both smal & great: yet so soon as Abigail (Nabals wife) a wife woman, made her petition to him, he abated his anger, put vp his sword, and nothing lamented the breach of his othe.

S. Ambrose hauing at large prooued by many golden testi∣monies, that it was sinne to breake ill vows then to performe the same, at length alleageth the ensample of Christ himselfe, for that only purpose; these are his words:* 1.259 Non semper igitur promissa soluenda omnia sunt: denique ipse dominus frequenter suam mutat sententiam, sicut scriptura indicat. Therefore all promises ought not to be kept at all times: for euen our Lord God himselfe doeth oftentimes change his purpose, as holie Writ beareth record.* 1.260 S. Austen reputeth it a great point of wisedome not to do that which a man hath rashly spoken: thus doth he write: Magnae sapientiae est reuocare hominem quod ma∣le locutus est: It is great wisedome for a man to call backe (and not performe) that which he hath spoken vnaduisedly.

Soter who himselfe was the bishop of Rome, teacheth ex∣presly, that rash promises ought not to be kept: these are his words: Si aliquid incautius aliquem iurasse contigerit,* 1.261 quod obseruatum in peiorem vergat exitum, illud salubri consilio mu∣tandum nouerimus, & magis instante necessitate periurandum nobis, quam pro facto iuramento in aliud crimen maius diuerten∣dum. If any man shall sweare vnaduisedly, which if it be per∣formed bringeth greater harme; that ought to be changed, by prudent aduise: for we must rather be periured, if neede so re∣quire, then for performance of our othe, to commit a greater sinne: so then it is euident, that vngodly and vnlawfull vowes ought not to be kept. But such is not the vow of single life, say the papists. This therefore must be examined.

The vow of single life is a godly vow, and so liked of Saint Paul, as he reputed them damned that kept not the same.* 1.262

I answer, that it is a wicked and vngodly vow,* 1.263 to tie our

selues from marriage al the daies of our life: and I wil proue the same, by the best approued popish doctours, and by the doctrine established in the Romish church, and that because the replie containeth such matters as is no lesse intricate then im∣portant. [ 1] I therefore say first, that it is a verie wicked and vn∣godly act, for a man to expose himselfe to sinne. Thus much is granted, by the vniforme consent of all learned Papists: inso∣much as all the Summists agree in this, that those arts which can seldome or neuer be vsed without sin, are altogether vnlaw∣full. Gregorie surnamed the Great, as hee was vertuous and learned, so was he the bishop of Rome, and for that respect, of great account among the Papists; though he were no papist in deede, as now a daies papists are so knowne and called: thus doth he write:

Sunt enim pleraque negotia, quae sine peccatis exhiberi aut vix aut nullatenus possunt:* 1.264 quae ergo ad peccatum implicant, ad haec necesse est vt post conuersionem animus non recurrat.

For there be sundrie arts, which can hardly or not at all bee practised without sinne: therefore after our conuersion wee may not haue recourse to such, as anie way draw vs to sinne. Nowe let vs applie this to the matter in hand, for it is most certaine that he exposeth himselfe to sinne, that bindeth him∣selfe neuer to vse the remedie against sinne: for example, if a man should vow, that hee would neuer vse the helpe of surge∣rie or phisicke, that man shoulde doubtlesse expose himselfe to the perill of death: none but senselesse bodies, will or can this denie: So in our case of single life, because God hath appoin∣ted matrimonie for a remedie against sinne, so saith the Apo∣stle, to auoide fornication, let euerie one haue his wife, and let euerie woman haue her husband. For which respect Saint Gregorie Nazianzene saith,* 1.265 that marriage is not so subiect to perill as single life.

[ 2] I say secondly, that it is a great sinne, to debarre and stop the course of naturall propension: yea this is a thing so cer∣taine,* 1.266 as their angelicall doctour Aquinas proueth thereby the murdering of ones selfe to be sinne, bicause it is against the inclination of nature. Nowe let vs make application heereof, for the propension to beget children is naturall, as which was

before sinne in the state of innocencie, and so hee that maketh a perpetuall vow of chastitie feeling in himselfe this propension, committeth a greeuous sinne.

I say thirdly, that it is a damnable sinne to tempt God, for [ 3] it is written in Gods booke,* 1.267 yee shall not tempt the Lorde your God. Vppon which words the glosse receiued of all pa∣pists; saith thus: Deum tentat, qui habens quid faciat, sine ra∣tione committit se periculo, hee tempteth God who hauing ordinarie meanes, committeth himselfe to daunger with∣out cause. This exposition is so agreeable to the text as A∣quinas willingly admitteth the same. Nowe let vs applie it to the matter in hande. He that refuseth ordinarie meanes, and so committeth himselfe to perill, tempts God grieuously, as both the popish glosse and Aquinas grant; but the ordinarie meanes to auoide fornication is marriage saith the Apostle:* 1.268 therefore he that voweth neuer to marrie, exposeth himselfe to the danger of fornication, & thereby tempteth god grieuously, and consequently his vow is wicked and damnable.

I say fourthly, that that vow which for the obediēce of mans [ 4] law is preiudicial to Gods law, is wicked and damnable:* 1.269 but such is the vowe annexed in popish priests (marke well my words) therefore the vow imposed to popish priests is wicked and damnable. I say first the vow annexed, because the priests [ 1] do not formally vow single life, but the Pope hath annexed it to their orders by his wicked decree. I say secondly, the vowe [ 2] imposed, because the priestes indeede woulde willingly re∣taine their libertie stil. I say thirdly, that gods law doth not [ 3] onely graunt libertie to marrie,* 1.270 but also chargeth euerie one that hath not the gift of continencie to take a wife, & to vse holy [ 4] wedlocke, for the auoiding of sinne. I say fourthly, that mans law onely hath prohibited the marriage of priests, which being once proued, this fourth assertion wilbe manifest. Thus ther∣fore writeth their deare Gratian in expresse words.

Copula namque sacerdotalis vel consanguineorum, nec legali,* 1.271 nec euangelica, vel apostolica auctoritate prohibetur, ecclesiasti∣ca tamen lege penitus interdicitur.

For the marriage of priests or kinsfolks, is neither forbiddē by the law of Moses, nor by the lawe of the gospell, nor by the

law of the apostles; yet is it vtterly interdicted, by the lawe of the church (of Rome.)

Marke well these wordes for Christes sake (gentle christian reader) for they are able to confound al obstinate papists in the [ 1] world. Obserue therefore first, that this Gratian who vttereth these words, was a verie famous popish Canonist, brother to Peter Lombard surnamed for his supposed deserts, the Mai∣ster of Sentences, who was sometime bishop of Paris, and of such renowme in the popish church, as his bookes are this day read publiquely in the diuinitie schooles. Obserue second∣ly, [ 2] that this great learned papist Gratian liued with his bro∣ther Lombard about 400. yeeres agoe, euen then when the pope was in his greatest pompe and tyrannie. Obserue third∣ly, that this Gratian being so learned and so renowmed among [ 3] the papists, did euen in the altitude of popedome, commit that to the publique view of the world, which vtterly ouerthroweth al papistrie. Obserue fourthly, that the pope and his vassalles [ 4] being iustly infatuated for their manifold sinnes, had not pow∣er to hinder and keepe backe from the print such bookes, as vt∣terly disclose their tyranny, falshood, and paltrie dealing. Oh sweete Iesus! great is thy mercy, wonderfull is thy iustice, in∣finite is thy wisedome, vnsearchable are thy iudgements. Tru∣ly saith the Psalmograph;* 1.272 Vnles the Lord defend the citie, in vaine do they labour that keepe the same. Thou, O God, who causest the red sea to giue place to the Israelites; thou who causest Balaams asse to speake; thou who causest the fire to suspend it force in the burning furnace; thou who causest yron to swimme vpon the water; thou who causest lockes and brasen gates to open voluntarily; thou, thou, O mightie God of Is∣rael, hast enforced Gratian that learned, famous, and zealous papist, to confesse openly for the battering downe of al popery, that the marriage of priests (which the Pope enforceth vppon them vnder paine of damnation euerlasting) is neither forbid∣den by the law of Moses, nor by the lawe of thy holy gospel, nor yet by the law of thine apostles.

* 1.273Caietanus their owne deare Cardinall and learned schoole∣man confirmeth that which Gratian hath already said. These are his wordes;

Nec ratione, nec authoritate probari potest quod absolute lo∣quendo, sacerdos peccet contrahendo matrimonium.* 1.274 Nam nec ordo in quantum ordo, nec ordo in quantum sacer, est impeditiuus matrimonij: siquidem sacer••otium non dirimit matrimonium contractum, siue ante, siue post, seclusis omnibus legibus ecclesi∣asticis, stando tantum ••is, quae habemus à Christo & apostolis.

It can neither bee proued by reason nor yet by authoritie, if we will speake absolutely, that a Priest sinneth by marrying a wife. For neither the order (of priesthood) in that it is order, neither order in that it is holy, is any hindrance vnto matrimo∣nie: for priesthood breaketh not marriage, whether it be con∣tracted before priesthood, or afterward, setting al ecclesiastical lawes aparte, and standing onely to those things, which wee haue of Christ and his Apostles.

Antoninus is consonant vnto Caietane,* 1.275 and writeth in this manner: Episcopatus ex natura sua, non habet opponi ad matri∣monium; the office of a bishoppe of his owne nature, is not op∣posite vnto marriage.

Saint Clement telleth it as a wonder, that the Apostle giuing so many rules and precepts touching matrimonie,* 1.276 should say nothing of the marriage of Priests, if it had beene a thing necessarie: these are his words.

Omnes Apostoli Epistolae, quae moderationem docent & con∣tinentiam, cum & de matrimonio, & de liberorum procreatione, & de domus administratione innumerabilia praecepta contine∣ant, nusquam honestum moderatumque matrimonium prohibu∣erunt.

All the Epistles of the Apostle, which teach sobrietie and continent life, whereas they containe innumerable precepts touching matrimonie, bringing vp of children, and gouernment of house, yet did they no where forbidde honest and sober marriage.

I say fiftly, that to take away the christian libertie from man which God hath granted to man, is a wicked and damnable [ 5] sinne: and therefore doth the holy vessell of God bid vs,* 1.277 to perseuer constantly therein. For after that hee hath exhorted euerie one to continue as God hath appointed, and withal hath shewed the freedome of marriage to bee granted to all, hee

forthwith addeth these words; Ye are bought with a price, be not the seruants of men: as if he had said, to marrie or not to marrie is in your owne election, let therefore neither Iew nor Gentile ouerrule your libertie, let none entangle your consci∣ences, let none bring you into faithlesse bondage, let none im∣pose that heauie yoke vpon your necks, which yee are no way able to beare. Nowe by due application heereof, the vow of single life, at the least the vow annexed to priesthood, which by the law of man, spoileth vs of our christian libertie, must needs be a wicked and damnable vowe.* 1.278 For as the learned papist Victoria hath wel obserued, the gospell is called the law of li∣bertie, because christians after the promulgation of the gospel, are onely bound to the law of nature. And yet our late popes haue made our case more intollerable, then euer was the hea∣uie yoke of the Iewes. For Saint Paul chargeth vs, to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free, and not to be intangled againe with the yoke of bondage.* 1.279

I say sixtly, that to abandon Gods holy ordinance is a wic∣ked [ 6] and damnable sinne: and yet is this done as the Pope bluntishly auoucheth, by his tyrannically extorted vowes: for matrimonie contracted after priesthood, is by Gods law true and perfect matrimonie, as is alreadie proued by popish grant; and yet is such matrimonie become no matrimonie by popish vow, as the Pope would enforce vs to beleeue. Therefore by due application, the monasticall vow is a wicked and damna∣ble thing.

I say seauenthly, that euerie vowe must bee de meliori bo∣no, [ 7] of a better good, or of that which is a more holy thing: so writeth their approued doctour and canonized saint Aquinas in his theological Summe:* 1.280 and therfore because the popish per∣petuall vowe of single life is not of such a better good, it must needs be a wicked & vnlawful act. To prooue the saide popish vow, is not of a better good, the reader must diligently obserue these points: first, that it is one thing to speake of virginity in it [ 1] selfe, or as it is compared with wedlocke; and another thing to speake of it as it is perpetually vowed in such & such a person: secondly, that to leade a single life is indifferent to such per∣sons [ 2] as haue the gift of continencie, but not to others: thirdly,

that such intangle themselues in snares by Saint Paules doc∣trine, [ 3] as do not know their future continuance,* 1.281 and for all that make a popish vow of single life for euer: fourthly, that it is a [ 4] great sinne to do any thing which is not of faith,* 1.282 for so saith the apostle. Hereupon it followeth first, that the vow of single life or virginitie, is vnlawfull: the reason is euident, because it is not a better good. I prooue it, by the flat testimonie of Saint Gregorie Nazianzene, a most eloquent and learned father, who was S. Hieroms master, and taught him the holy scriptures, and for his wonderfull knowledge therein was rightly surna∣med Theologus, as recordeth Simeon Metaphrastes, these are his expresse wordes;

Cum in duo haec genera vita nostra omnis diuisa sit,* 1.283 nimirum in matrimonium & caelibatū, (quorum alterum vt praestantius & diuinius, ita maioris quo{que} laboris & periculi alterum humilius quidem & abiectius, caeterum minori periculo obnoxium) vita∣tis vtriusque status incommodis, quicquid in vtroque commodi erat, delegerit, in vnumque coegerit, alterius nempe sublimita∣tem, alterius securitatem, fuerìtque citra supercilium pudica, cae∣libatus commoda matrimonio temperans, ac reipsa ostendens neu∣trum horum suapte natura tale esse, vt nos prorsus vel Deo vel mundo astringat, vel ab his penitus nos separet: Sic quidem vt alterum natura omnino fugiendum sit, alterum prorsus expeten∣dum; verum mentem esse, quae & nuptias & virginitatem re∣cte moderetur, atque vtrumque horum instar materiae cuiuspiam ab artifice ratione componi, & ad virtutem elaborari.

Whereas our whole life is diuided into these two kindes, to wit, into matrimonie and single life, (whereof the one as it is more excellent and diuine, so is it also of greater labour & dan∣ger; the other more base and vile, but subiect to lesse danger) (Gorgonia) eschewing the discommodities of either state, hath chosen and gathered into one, what commoditie soeuer was in both, that is, the sublimitie of the one and the securitie of the o∣ther. She was chaste and nothing proud, tempering the com∣modities of single life with marriage, and shewing in very deede, that neither of the twaine is such of it owne nature, as can eyther ioyne vs wholy to God, or to the worlde, or with∣draw vs wholy from God or from the world. So verily as the

one ought of it owne nature be auoided, and the other to bee required: but that it is the minde that doth rightly moderate both marriage and virginitie, and that either of them must bee by reason composed of the artificer as certaine vnwrought stuffe, & so be made a vertue. These are the words of this great clarke and holy father, in which he hath learnedly described the natures and properties, both of marriage & virginitie; which I haue alleaged at large, because they are worthy of our consi∣deration, and doe exactly explaine this intricate and important matter. Out of them therefore I note first, that as virginitie is [ 1] more excellent one way, so is it more dangerous another way, and so all things considered, there is no preeminence in either [ 2] of the twaine, at least not in virginitie. I note secondly, that as matrimonie is more secure and free from perill, so may it also include al the good that is in virginitie. For as S. Gregorie saith, Gorgonia being a married woman, ioyned the sublimitie & most excellent part of virginitie, with the securitie of hir chast wedlocke. I note thirdly, that by S. Gregories discourse, wed∣lock [ 3] is to be preferred before virginitie. For al the good parts of virginitie may be included in chast wedlocke, not so the good parts of wedlocke in virginitie, that is, virginity is euer subiect to perill, from which wedlocke abideth free. I adde hereun∣to, that the world may be cōtinued without virginity, although wedlocke be necessarie for the same. I note fourthly, that vir∣ginitie [ 4] of it owne nature, can neither ioyne vs to God, nor withdraw vs from God, but is as marriage in that respect. I note fiftly, that neither wedlock nor yet virginity is a virtue of [ 5] it selfe, but a peece of vnwrought stuffe, which then becommeth a vertue, when it is perfectly laboured by the worker: and consequently, that virginitie hath no such perfection and me∣rite as our papists doe ascribe vnto it.* 1.284 Clemens Alexandri∣nus taught this doctrine long before Saint Gregorie.

It followeth secondly vppon the foure obseruations, that if [ 2] virginitie were a better good as it is considered in it selfe, (the contrarie whereof is proued) yet woulde it not follow that it were a better good,* 1.285 as it is vowed of him or hir that hath not y^e gift: the reason is euident, because our sauiour hath appointed such persons, to vse the soueraigne medicine of chast wedlocke:

and so single life is so farre from being a better good in such persons, that it is no good at all, but a flat damnable sin.* 1.286 Be∣sides this, such persons expose themselues to great perill, that is, to commit fornication, because they know not their own fu∣ture state.

It followeth thirdly, that such a vowe cannot be of a better good, because it is not of faith. I proue it, because his act can∣not [ 3] be of faith, who knoweth not whether his act please God or not, yea he contemneth God presuming to do that, which is offensiue in Gods sight. If they answere that they know God will giue them the gift for asking; I replie, that so to say is great presumption: For Christ himselfe saith, that all cannot liue single, but they onely to whom it is giuen:* 1.287 and saint Paul after he had wished euerie man to be as himselfe, added forth∣with; but euerie one hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. Saint Ambrose saith, sola est virginitas quae suaderi potest, imperari non potest;* 1.288 onely vir∣ginitie is a thing which may be counselled, but commanded it cannot be.

I say eightly, that a lawfull and godly vowe must bee of such things as are in our owne power, & that otherwise it is of [ 8] no force at all. For this cause, the vowes that children made were of no force in the law of Moses, so long as they were vn∣der the gouernment of their parents. In like case were the vows of wiues, & of seruants,* 1.289 without the consent of their hus∣bands and masters, yea, all vowes of monks & other religious persons so called, which are made without consent of their ab∣bots, & generals, are for this cause voide, & of no force at all: so write Aquinas, Caietanus, Couarruuias, Nauarrus Syluester,* 1.290 Fumus, Antoninus, and the rest. And yet is it euident, that Chastitie is not in the power of man, for so Christ himself hath taught vs. And it is a friuolous euasion to say, that by prayer it may be obtained. For who knoweth that God will grant his prayer for single life? to whom hath God so promised? Certes, the holy Apostle praied instantly three times, that the pricke of the flesh might be taken from him,* 1.291 and yet could not attaine the same. Neuerthelesse euerie idle Monke, Frier, and Nunne, when they haue presumptuously entangled themselues in the

snare, and that without Gods appointment, nay contrary to his commaundement, will enforce God to yeeld to their de∣sire. In this their impious doctrine, our papistes doubtlesse become flat Pelagians, and either for their pride will not, or for their iust blindnesse cannot see it. For Iulianus the Pelagi∣an taught the selfe same doctrine,* 1.292 and for that was christianly confuted by S. Augustine. These are S. Austens expresse wordes; Dicis enim quod dominum continentiae gloriam liber∣tate electionis honorauerit, dicens, qui potest capere capiat; tan∣quam hoc capiatur non dei munere, sed arbitrij libertate, & ta∣ces quod supra dixerit,* 1.293 non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed qui∣bus datum est. Vide quae taceas, quae dicas. Puto quod te pungat conscientia: sed vincit rectum timorem, cum ingerit peruersum pudorem, quoquo modo iam defendenda praecipitata sententia.

For thou saiest, that our Lord hath honoured the glorie of continencie with the freedome of election, saying; He that can take, let him take; as if this were taken not by Gods gift, but by y^e free will of man, & thou concealest that which Christ said before, al men doe not receiue this word, but they to whom it is giuen. Consider well, what thou concealest, and what thou saiest. I verily thinke, that thine own conscience pricketh thee: but when a rash sentence must be defended, it bringeth in per∣uerse shame, which ouercommeth godly feare. Thus saith S. Austen.

Out of these wordes I gather first, that Iulianus held this [ 1] opinion, that euery one might liue a chaste single life, at his [ 2] pleasure. I gather secondly, that for this end hee wrested the [ 3] holy scripture. I gather thirdly, that Iulians owne conscience condemned him for this his foolishe opinion, as S. Austen thought: and so gentle reader, thou seest euidently, that late poperie is become flat Pelagianisme.

But our papists in great furie exclaime bitterly against vs & say, y^t God denieth vs nothing, that is necessary for our salua∣tion: which I willingly admit, telling them withall, that we may attaine eternall saluation, aswell by marriage as by sin∣gle life.* 1.294 And heereunto I adde, that matrimonie is ordained for the saluation of al such as cannot liue a continent single life: and therfore saith the Apostle; if they cannot absteine, let them

marry, for it is better to marry then to burne. Againe, albeit God should graunt their requestes for a time, yet would it not follow that they shuld so continue to the end of their liues.* 1.295 For as S. Paul aduiseth, hee that seemeth to stand, ought to take good heed least he fall.

I say ninthly, that vowes which are not voluntary and free from all coaction, are not only wicked, but of no force at all. So [ 9] write the best popish doctors, Aquinas, Lombardus,* 1.296 Antoni∣nus, Nauarrus, Syluester, Angelus, Fumus and the rest. And who knoweth not that Romish priestes, moonkes and others of that irreligious crew, doe yeeld to the perpetuall vow of single life by coaction, and reluctante conscientia? it is manifest doubt∣lesse in all such as want the supernaturall gift. For since they can neither freely be admitted to the ecclesiasticall ministerie, nor yet professed in the monasterie, and so enioy the expected commodities thereof: at length they condescend by popish re∣straint, to admit the vowe of single life. For howsoeuer God shal bestowe his gift of continent single life, it is decreed before hand, that the yonger brothers of the house of Farnesus, & Co∣lumna, Vrsinus, and such like, shalbe cardinals bound to single life. So is it commonly intended by gentle men, otherwise ver∣tuous and of good worship, that their yonger sonnes shalbe the parsons of such and such fat liuings, wherof themselues are the patrones; although they be as vnfit for the popish annexed vow, as euer was Sardanapalus that effeminate wanton.

I say tenthly, that al vowes are wicked and vnlawful which [ 10] are either of things indifferēt, or of vnlawful things, or against any commandement. So write Antoninus, Fumus, Vignerius,* 1.297 and other approoued papistes. All which neuerthelesse are tru∣ly verified, of the popish vowes of single life. For first, virgi∣nitie is a thing meere indifferent, and no vertue till it be right∣ly [ 1] laboured by the workman, as I haue prooued out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene▪ Secondly, the vowe of virginitie or [ 2] single life in such as want the gift, is against Gods holy com∣mandement expressed not onely in S. Paul,* 1.298 but also in his ho∣ly gospel. For when Christ saith, he y^t can take, let him take; he saith also consequently & virtually, he y^t cannot take, let him not take: as if he had said; whosoeuer can with a good conscience

absteine from wedlocke, let him so doe; but he that cannot, let him marry a wife, because that is expedient for his saluation. S, Paul doth so interpret Christ, in other wordes equiualent. I say vnto the vnmarried, and vnto the widowes, it is good for them if they abide euen as I doe:* 1.299 but if they cannot abstein, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn. Thirdly, virginitie vowed as a worke of supererogation, of merite, and perfection, is a wicked and superstitious thing, and yet is this the popishe maner of vowing the same: for thus writeth Viguerius, their learned professor of diuinitie and Dominican frier.* 1.300 Dicitur melius bonum, quia est supererogationis, & quia iuducit ad perfectionē, vt castitas, paupertas, & obedientia. It is called the better good, for that it is a worke of supererogati∣on, and because it bringeth vs to perfection; as chastitie, pouer∣tie, and obedience. Now that none of our workes be perfect, or rightly termed workes of supererogation; I haue prooued copiously, in the fift conclusion of the second chapter of my Motiues. I therfore conclude, that perpetuall vowes of single life in the Romish Church, are vaine, rash, impious, and most execrable in Gods sight.

The perioch of the chapter.

Priestes were married in the olde lawe, and in time of the new testament, in the East church, and in the West: Many popes of Rome, were the sonnes of priests: neither were they bastardes, but legitimate children. Many holy and learned bi∣shops, were married men▪ S. Gregory, S. Spiridion, S. Cheremon, S. Philogonius, S. Eupsichius. S. Paphnutius defended the mar∣riage of priestes publickly in the councell of Nice, and auou∣ched in the spirite of God, that the vse of holy wedlocke was honourable in them, euen in time of their priesthood. S. Chere∣mon and his wife fled togither from persecution, euen at that time when he was Bishop of Nicopolis. Eupsichius was the bi∣shop of Cesarea and forthwith after his marriage martyred for Christ Iesus. The apostles themselues were married, begate children, and carried their wiues about with them, while they preached the gospel abroad in the countrey. Clergie men vsed

the benefite of marriage aswell as secular persons, vntill the vntimely birth of wicked pope Syritius. Bishops, priests, and all religious persons so termed, may most lawfully marry by the lawes of God, and are onely debarred thereof by the odible lawes of man, or rather to vse the apostles wordes, by the detestable doctrine of Satan. All this I haue proued effectually in this present chapter. Yea, the marriage of priestes was vsed without restraint in Germanie, for the space of a thousand seuentie and foure yeares, after Christes sacred incarnation.* 1.301 That is, vntill the daies of the vngratious pope Hildebrand, who termed himselfe Gregorie the seuenth, who crept into the popedome by naughty meanes, in the yeare of Christ 1074. And because I wil charge the Papistes with nothing, but that which they shall neuer be able to denie; their own deare moonk Lambertus Schafnaburgensis, (a man whom their trusty friend Ar. Pontacus Burdegalensis, affirmeth to haue handled the hi∣stories of his time very exactly) shalbe my witnesse against the pope, and popishly prohibited marriages. This writer so au∣thenticall as ye heare, writeth in this maner;

Hildebrandus papa cum episcopis Italiae conueniens iam fre∣quentibus synodis decreuerat,* 1.302 vt secundum instituta antiquo∣rum canonum presbyteri vxores non habeant, habentes aut di∣mittant, aut deponantur;* 1.303 nec quispam omnino ad sacerdotium admittatur, qui non in perpetuum continentiam vitamque cae∣libemprofiteatur. Sequitur; aduersus hoc decretum protinus ve∣hementer infremuit tota factio clericorum, hominem plane haereticum & vesani dogmatis esse clamitans, qui oblitus ser∣monis domini, quo ait, non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, qui po∣test capere capiat; & Apostolus, qui se non continet, nubat; melius est enim nubere quam vri, violenta exactione homines viuere cogeret ritu angelorum, & dum consuetum cursum naturae negaret, fornicationi & immunditiei fraena laxaret.

Pope Hildebrand togither with the Bishoppes of Italie de∣creed in frequent Synodes, that after the ordinaunces of olde canons, priestes shoulde not haue wiues; and that suche as had wiues, shoulde either put them awaie, or bee depriued of their liuinges; and that none shoulde be admitted to the or∣der of priesthoode, but hee that woulde professe the per∣petual

vow of single life. Against this decree the whole faction of the clergy stormed wonderfully, exclaming that Hildebrand was mad & a flat heretike, as who had forgotten the words of the Lord, who saith that all cannot liue continent, and the A∣postle saith, hee that cannot abstaine, let him marrie; for it is better to marrie, then to be burnt; and would violently compel men to liue like angels; and while hee denied the accustomed course of nature, gaue libertie to fornication and vncleannesse. Out of which wordes I note first, that this Lambertus was a [ 1] Monke, and a great patron of poperie, which I proue by two reasons; first, for that hee tearmed it a faction, to withstand Pope Hildebrands wicked decree. Again, because he affirmeth the late prohibition of priests marriage, to bee according to the old canons, which canons for al that, were not before the daies [ 2] of the late Pope Syricius, as I haue proued. I note secondly, that since this Lambert was a great and zealous papist, all must needs be of good credit, that he saith against the papists, and popish doctrine. I note thirdly, that priests were marri∣ed [ 3] in Germanie, aboue one thousand seuentie yeeres after Christ, that is, till the time of this wicked Hildebrand. I note [ 4] fourthly, that it was so strange a thing in those dayes to speake against the mariage of priests in Germanie, that they reputed Pope Hildebrand a madde man and an heretique, for with∣standing the same. And yet such is the fondnesse and mad∣nesse of the common sorte this daye, that they deeme them mad men and heretikes, who speake in defence thereof. I note [ 5] fiftly, that all the learned in Germanie proued the Pope an heretike, by the flatte testimonie of Christ and his Apostle. I [ 6] note sixtly, that by the verdict of all the learned in Germanie, that great and goodly country, Pope Hildebrand did not only enforce them violently against their auncient custome, but withall did open the window to al filthie liuing. Priests were also married in our owne countrey of England, till the late dayes of the saide Pope Hildebrand, if wee will beleeue our owne English Chronicles.

Polidorus another deare friend of the papists, shall tell them what he thinks of the Popes proceeding, touching the marri∣age of priests: thus doth he write.

Illud tamen dixerim, tantum abfuisse, vt ista coacta castitas il∣lam coniugalem vicerit,* 1.304 vt etiam nullius delicti crimen maius ordini dedecus, plus malireligioni, plus doloris omnib bonis im∣presserit, inusserit, attulerit, quam sacerdotum libidinis labes: proinde forsitan tam è republica christiana quam ex ordinis vsu esset; vt tandem aliquando ius publici matrimoni•• sacerdotibus restitueretur: quod illi sine infamia sanctè potius colerent, quam se spurcissimè eiuscemodi naturae vitio turpificarent.

Yet this I wil say, that this compelled chastitie (of priests,) was so far frō excelling chastity in wedlock, as no crime what∣soeuer hath brought greater shame to priesthood, more harme to religion, more griefe to all good men, then the vnchast life of priests. Therefore, perhaps it were no lesse necessarie for the publike weale of christendome, then for the order of priesthood, that once againe priests might marrie publikely, that so they might liue honestly & without shame, & not pollute themselues so filthily. This is the iudgemēt of their own popish Polidore, who being an Italian knewe best the Romish fashion. He con∣fesseth plainly as you see, that priests were maried in old time, wishing for great causes that it were so againe. Their great Cardinall Panormitanus giueth so worthie a testimony of this controuersie, as which being well marked, will confoūd al pa∣pists in the world: these be his words; Continentia nō est in cle∣ricis secularibus de substantia ordinis, nec de iure diuino,* 1.305 quia a∣liàs Graeci peccarent, nec excusaret eos consuetudo. Sequitur: & non solum credo potestateminesse ecclesiae hoc condendi sed credo pro bono & salute esset animarum▪ quod esset salubre statutum, vt volentes possint contrahere, quia experiētia docente, contra∣rius prorsus effectus sequitur ex illa lege continentiae, cum hodie non viuant spiritualiter, nec sint mundi, sed maculantur illici∣to coitu cum eorum grauiss▪ peccato, vbi cum propria vxore esset castitas: Continencie in secular priests, is not of the substance of their orders, nor of the law diuine, because otherwise the Greeks should sinne, and their custome could not excuse them: and I doe not onely beleeue that the church can make such a law, but also that such a law were for the good, and for the sal∣uation of soules, that such as would might marrie; because ex∣perience teacheth, that a contrarie effect followeth of that lawe

of continencie, since this day they liue not spiritually, neither are cleane, but are polluted in vnlawfull copulation with their sinne most greeuous, though they might liue chastly with their owne wiues. Out of which wordes of Panormitan, [ 1] (who was their canonist, their Abbot, their archbishop, their cardinall,) I note first, that the prohibition of marriage in se∣cular priestes, is neither of the substance of the ministerie nor by the law of God, but onely enforced by the law of man. I note secondly, that priestes marriage may be honourable and honest [ 2] chastitie. I note thirdly, that the prohibition of priestes marri∣age, [ 3] is against their soules health, as which causeth the priests to sin damnably. Out of which notes I inferre this memora∣ble corollary, that the prohibition of priests marriage is against Gods law, against the health of mens soules, and against the good of the common weale, and that by constant popish doctrin. So then, the pope is neuer able, to purge himself of his shame∣ful dealing.

CHAP. V. Of popish pardons, and the originall thereof.

I Haue spoken so copiously of popish pardons, in my booke of Motiues; as much more shall not be needfull, in this place. There I prooued by the testimonie of Roffensis, Syluester, and other popish doctors, that popish pardons are not grounded in or vpon the word of god; as also that they crept into the church, long after Christes ascension into heauen.

* 1.306Bonifacius the eight of that name, (who began his pope∣dome as a foxe, continued in it, as a wolf, and ended it as a dog, their owne writers Platina and Carranza so affirming) was the first bishop of Rome, that euer tooke vpon him to pardon sinne by publique bulles. He appointed a Iubilee, and graun∣ted full remission of al sinnes,* 1.307 to such as would come in pilgri∣mage to Rome. Their owne Platina hath these expresse wordes: Iubilaeum idem retulit anno millesimo trecentesimo, quo plenam delictorum omnium remissionem his praestabat, qui limina apostolorum visitassent, ad exemplum veteris testa∣menti. (Pope Boniface) brought againe the Iubilee, after 1300. yeares, and gaue full pardon of all sinnes to those that did visite S. Peters Church (in Vaticano at Rome,) after

the example of the olde lawe. Out of these words I note first, that the old iubilee was neuer heard of in Christs church til the [ 1] time of Bonifacius our Iewish pope. I proue it by the word (retulit) he brought again (from the Iewes.) I note secondly, that the church was free frō popish pardons, the space of 1300 [ 2] yeares, so as popish pardons are not yet 300. yeares old, albe∣it sillie people do so magnifie the same. I note thirdly, that this pope pardoned not only the paine, but euen the sin it selfe, yea [ 3] all sinnes whatsoeuer. Though our latter papists to hide their shame if it could be, do violently interpret him of the pain. I note fourthly, that this good father Maliface brought again the Iewish ceremonial law. I note fiftly, that the remission of [ 4] the olde law (which they pretend apishly to imitate) was not of sins, but of debts, lands, bondage, & such like, which the pope [ 5] vseth not to pardon:* 1.308 and yet forsooth he would be thought to bring the Iubilee againe.

Two hundreth yeares after this, that is, 1500. yeares after Christ, pope Alexander the sixt appointed his Iubilee,* 1.309 and like pardons, not onely for comming to Rome, but to all persons in all places wheresoeuer. So writeth their own Polydore, and Platina accordeth therunto: for the rest see my Motiues in this point.

The first obiection.

The church of God vsed to giue pardons,* 1.310 aboue a thousand and two hundred yeares sithence, as appeareth by the great councell of Nice, and by other ancient synods. Yea S. Grego∣rie gaue pardon, to al those that did visit the churches at Rome

The answere.

I say first, that Emperors, kings, absolute princes, & com∣mon [ 1] weales independent, may lawfully pardon malefactours, the due circumstances of times, places and persons wel consi∣dered: and so may one neighbour pardon an other, for trespas∣ses done vnto him. I say secondly, that in the primitiue church, [ 2] such as were notorius offenders, & had giuen publike scandall to y^e church, were inioyned by the church, to do publike penance for their publike faults, before they could be admitted into the church again. Which thing is this day obserued in all reformed churches abroad, and in all particular churches (God be than∣ked for it) throughout the Realme of England.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that in the ancient churches, many yeares of penance (or publike exercises of humiliation) were ordained for euerie publike grieuous offence. Whereupon it followed, that when many penitent persons gaue euident tokens of tru inter∣nal remorse, for their former scandalous conuersation; then the church thought good to giue to such persons, some relaxatiō of their so inioyned publike penance: which maner of pardoning is plainely acknowledged in the holy councel of Nice. These are the expresse words. De his qui praeter necessitatem praeuari∣cati sunt,* 1.311 aut propter ablationem facultatum, aut propter peri∣culum, aut aliquid huiusmodi, quod factum est sub tyrannide Li∣cini••; placuit sanctae synodo licet sint indigni misericordia, tamē aliquid circa e••s humanitatis ostendi. Concerning those that haue voluntarily transgressed, or for feare to lose their worldely goods, or for danger, or anie such like occasion, as chanced in time of Licinius his persecution; to such although they be vn∣worthie of mercie, yet is it the holy councels mind, to graunt them some pardon or relaxation in that behalfe.

In the councel of Arles, and in the councell of Ancyra, the like pardon is granted to penitent offenders:* 1.312 of which kind of pardons, the ancient fathers Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Eusebius, Sozomenus, and others, do often make relation. Yea, of this sort were the pardons that Saint Gregorie gaue: but of late popish pardons, that is, of applying to whom they list, & when they list, as well to the liuing as to the dead, the merites of Christ and of his saints, as condigne satisfaction for their sins: for of such pardons no councell, no father, no ancient approued Historiographer, maketh any mention at all. Which thing I haue plainely proued, in the third conclusion of the second chap∣ter of my Motiues.

The second obiection.

The keyes of heauen were giuen to Saint Peter, and conse∣quently to his successours the bishops of Rome,* 1.313 and withall promise was made vnto him, that whatsoeuer hee should binde on earth, the same should be bound in heauen, & whatsoeuer hee should loose on earth, should be loosed in heauen: nowe to loose sins is nothing else, but to giue a pardon or indulgence for the same.

The answere. [ 1]

I say first, that vpon the grosse interpretation of these words, many popish priests haue arrogantly & presumptuously taken vpon them like the proude pharises, to condemne the innocents and to loose the guiltie persons; whereas before God, not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the persons charged is enquired of. Thus writeth S. Hierome, adding that priests can bind and loose sinners no otherwise now in the new testament, then they did binde and loose the Leapers in the old law:* 1.314 that is, not to forgiue sinnes perfitly and indeede, but to declare by Gods word, the sinnes of penitent persons to be forgiuen in Gods sight; euen as the priests in Moses law did not purge the Leapers,* 1.315 but onely declared those whom God had purged alreadie, to be cleane and free from the leprosie: for as the go∣spel witnesseth, none but God can forgiue sinne.

I say secondly,* 1.316 that all the rest of the Apostles had the selfe same power granted to them all, which is here promised to S. [ 2] Peter: for so saith Christ himselfe in another place, where hee performeth his promise nowe made to Peter, in the person of thē al: & consequently, if the Pope could pardon, as fondly is i∣magined;* 1.317 yet might al other bishops do the same euen aswel as he. So S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Hylary, O∣rigen, Theophilacte, and others do confesse.

I say thirdly, that S. Peter and the other Apostles haue not power granted by the scripture to forgiue sin, but onely to de∣clare and pronounce according to the scripture, that God hath forgiuen to truely penitent persons all their sins. For they can [ 3] but onely declare the sinnes to be forgiuen, which are by Christ forgiuen already, as the priests in the olde law could not purge any from the leprosie indeede, but only make declaration of the truth; as ye haue heard out of S. Hierome. The learned po∣pish Cardinal Hugo, (to the euerlasting confusion of all impe∣nitent and obstinate papists) confirmeth S. Hieromes opini∣on in these expresse words: Vinculo culpae & poenae debitae non potest••um sacerdos ligare vel soluere,* 1.318 sed tantum ligatū vel absolutū ostēdere; sicut sacerdos Leuiticus non faciebat vel mun∣dabat leprosum, sed tantum infectum vel mundū ostendebat. The priest cannot bind him with the bond of sin and due punishment,

either loose him frō the same, but only declare him to be bound or absolued (in Gods sight) euen as the Leuitical priest did not make or clense him that had the leprosie, but onely shewed him to be infected or clensed.

Their own schoole doctour Durandus singeth the same song, in these expresse words; Claues nihil operantur ad dimissionem culpae vel maculae,* 1.319 quia deordinatio actus tollitur per eius ordi∣nationem, dum bene displicet, quod malè placuit. The keyes work nothing to the remission of the fault or blemish, because the deordination of the act is taken away by well ordering the same, while that displeaseth well, which pleased euil.

Thus we see by popish grant and doctrine, that the metapho∣rical keyes (whereof the papists boast so much) can neuer put a∣way sinne, neither can any priest absolue any person from sin, or from the paine due for sinne, saue onely by declaring his sins to be forgiuen, as is said.

The replie.

* 1.320It is euident in the holy gospel, that not onely God can for∣giue sin by his own power, but men also by authority & com∣mission receiued from him: for when Christ had forgiuen the sicke man his sinnes the people maruailed, and glorified God, which had giuen such power vnto men.

The answere.

I answere, that our sauior Christ in forgiuing the sicke mans sins,* 1.321 shewed himselfe to be tru God: which maner of proofe had bin none indeed, if any but god could haue done the same, which point I wish the gentle reader to obserue attentiuely. For the Pharises charged him with blasphemy, as who not being god, yet toke vpon him the office of God, in forgiuing sins. Whose opinion for all that, Christ himselfe approued, & for ratificati∣on thereof, shewed by an euident external miracle, that he was god indeed, so as they could no longer be in suspence of y^e mat∣ter,* 1.322 but that yee may know (saith Christ) that the son of man hath power to forgiue sins (then said he to the sick of the palsie) arise, take vp thy bed, and goe into thy house; as if he had said, I confesse that I am God, and that yee may knowe the same euidently, I make the sicke man whole with mine onelie worde, which if I were not God indeede, I could neuer doe.

This case S. Chrysostome maketh so plaine, as none that once reade or heare his wordes, can stand any longer in doubt ther∣of. Thus doth he write in expresse termes. Videamus quid ip∣se ait, vtrum opinionem eorum improbauerit,* 1.323 an potius compro∣bauerit: nisi enim aequalis esset patri, dixisset; quid mihi tribui∣tis non competentem opinionem? procul ego absum à tanta pote∣state. Nunc verò nihil horum dixit, sed contra, tam verbo quam signo affirmauit. Ita quoniam solet esse audientibus molestum, vt aliquis de seipso apertius dicat, aliorum verbis & signo deum se patri{que} aequalem esse ostendit; & quod mirabilius est, non per amicos solum, verum etiam per inimicos hoc peragit, vt & vir∣tutis & sapientiae suae pelagus pateat. Let vs see what he saith, whether hee reprooued their opinion, or rather approoued the same. For if he had not been equall with his father, he woulde haue said; why doe ye ascribe to me that incompetent opinion? I am farre off from that so great power: yet now hee saith no such thing, but contrariwise affirmeth it both by word and mi∣racle. So because it is woont to bee greeuous to the hearers, that any man should speake openly of himselfe; he sheweth both by the testimonie of others and by myracle, that he is God, and equall with his father; and which is more wonderfull, this he doth not only by his friendes, but euen by his enemies, that so aswell his power as his wisdom may be known aboundantly.

Out of which words I note first, y^t Christ approued the opi∣niō of the Pharisies, who held that only God could forgiue sin. [ 1]

I note secondly, that if Christ had not been equall with God [ 2] the father, he would neuer haue taken vpon him to pardon sin; and consequently,* 1.324 that the pope who will giue a generall par∣don of al sinnes, must by S. Chrysostomes iudgement, be either as good as God, or worse then the diuell. I note thirdly, that it was needfull for Christ to shew himselfe to be God; because [ 3] otherwise he might iustly haue been charged with blasphemie, because he did pardon sin. And consequently, y^t our pope and his popish vassals, our Iesuites, moonkes, and friers, must ei∣ther prooue themselues Gods, by signes and myracles; or else confesse themselues to blaspheme God, while they remit and pardon sinne. For they all chalenge this power of remitting sinne, in their (so termed) sacrament of penance.

S. Ambrose and S. Hilary both are of the very same iudge∣ment, S. Ambrose writeth in this maner. Cognosce interioris homines sanitatem;* 1.325 cui peccata donantur: quae cum Iudaei asse∣runt à solo Deo posse concedi, Deum vtique confitentur suóque iu∣dicio perfidiam suam produnt; qui vt opus astruant, personam negant. Sequitur; magna itaque infidae plebis amentia, vt cum confessa fuerit solius dei esse donare peccata, nō credat deo pecca ta donanti. Acknowledge the curing of the inward man, whose sins are forgiuen: which when the Iewes confesse that onely God can forgiue, they doubtlesse confesse him to be God, & by their owne iudgement bewray their false faith, who to establish the work, denie the person. Great therfore is the incredulitie of faithles people, who confessing that only God can forgiue sins, doth not for all that beleeue in God that forgiueth sins.

S. Hilary hath these words; Mouet Scribas remissum ab ho∣mine peccatam;* 1.326 hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contueban∣tur, & remissum ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat: fides enim sola iustificat. Deinde murmurationem eorum dominus introspi∣cit, dicitque facile esse filio hominis in terra peccata dimittere: verum enim nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus; ergo qui remittit, Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. It stirreth the Scribes that a man should forgiue sin, because they beheld in Iesu Christ onely a man, (not God) and that to be forgiuen by him, which the law could not release: For faith onely iusti∣fieth. Afterward the Lord looketh into their murmuring, and saith that it is easie for the son of man to forgiue sins on earth, for it is true, that no man can forgiue sinnes, but onely God, therefore he that remitteth sinnes, is God, because no man re∣mitteth sinnes but God. By these testimonies it is euident, that God, and onely God can forgiue sins, & that our sauiour Christ did effectually, proue himselfe to be God, in that he could for∣giue sin. Which kind of reasoning had been of no force at all, if others beside god, as monks & Iesuits could haue remitted sin.

The replie.

The text saith, that the faithfull people did glorifie God, for that he gaue such power to men, as to remit sins and to do mi∣racles; knowing that so to doe by commission from God, was not against his glory.

The answere.

I answer, that although sundry of the people were reuerent∣ly affected towards Christ, by reason of his miracles; yet did they not behold or confesse God manifested in the flesh, but still thought Christ to be a pure man, though a great and holy pro∣phet. And the reason hereof is euident, because they did not ac∣knowledge Christ to be God, but to haue receiued that power from God, as an holy man: for as the text saith, the multitudes seeing it, were afraid and glorified God, that gaue such power vnto men. Out of which words I note first, that they beleeued not Christ to be God, because they were afraid. For as Saint Iohn saith, he that confesseth Iesus to be the sonne of God,* 1.327 wil loue him and be without feare. I note secondly, that they gaue glorie to god, but not to the Sauior of the world: for albeit that no man but Christ wrought the miracles, yet did they glorifie God for giuing such power to men, whereby it is cleare, that they esteemed of him, as of a pure man; and that god had giuen that power to others as well as to him, otherwise they would haue spoken in the singular number, and not in the plu∣rall; of onely Christ whom they saw, and not of moe, whome they neither saw, nor could see, working in that diuine maner. I note thirdly, that it is a bluntish kinde of disputation, when the conceit of the vulgar sort, is alleaged to refute Christs di∣uine reasoning.

The third obiection.

S. Paul himselfe gaue pardon to the incestuous Corinthian,* 1.328 who had committed fornication with his fathers wife.

The answere

I say first, that if popish pardons should be grounded vpon this place, it would follow by a necessarie consecution, that the [ 1] Pope himselfe could pardon no more, then euerie simple priest; which sequele I coniecture cannot well stand with the Popes liking. I proue it, because the other ministers in Corinth gaue the selfe same pardon with S. Paul: and therfore doth the A∣postle say; To whom ye pardon anie thing, I also pardon.* 1.329

I say secondly, that popish confession must of necessity go be∣fore popish pardoning, in al such as sin mortally; and therefore [ 2] since the apostle doth not once name popish confession, it fol∣loweth

perforce, that he neither speaketh of popish pardoning.

I say thirdly, that the pardoning whereof S. Paul speak∣keth, is nothing else, but that he who was excommunicate for his publique trespas, may, after signes of true remorce, be re∣stored to the church againe; and after their sharpe censure of correction,* 1.330 find pardon and mercie at their hands. This much I prooue out of saint Paules owne words, which are these; It is sufficient to the same man, that he was rebuked of many; so now contrariwise ye ought rather to forgiue him and comfort him, lest he should be swallowed vp with ouermuch heauines. Wherefore I pray you, that ye would confirme your loue to∣wards him. After this graue and godly exhortation, he adioy∣neth these words; To whom ye forgiue any thing, I forgiue al∣so: as if hee had saide; if yee be content to receiue him into the church againe, I am therewith well pleased. For he yeeldeth two reasons why the church of Corinth ought to pardon the excommunicate person: the one is, for that hee seemed to haue giuen sufficient signes of his vnfained repentance: the other is, lest too much rigour of correction should bring him to despera∣tion. For which cause S. Paul requesteth them to declare the consent of the whole congregation, that hee was taken againe for a brother and pardoned for his offence. So then S. Paul and the church of Corinth did pardon no otherwise indeede, but euen as we our selues are taught to pardon in the Lords prai∣er, saying; and pardon vs our trespasses, as we pardon or for∣giue [ 4] them that offend against vs.

I say fourthly, that the renowmed popish Thomist Syluester Prierias, sometime maister of their so termed sacred pallace, confesseth plainely according to right and reason, that popish pardons were neither knowne to vs by this place of S. Paul, neither yet by any other place of the whole scripture: these are his expresse words:* 1.331

Indulgentia nobis per scripturam minimè innotuit▪ licet in∣ducatur illud, 2. Corin. 2. si quid donaui vobis; sed nec per dicta antiquorum doctorum, sed modernorum. Dicitur enim Grego∣rius indulgentiam septennem in stationibus Romae posuisse, & quia ecclesia hoc facit & seruat, credendum est ita esse, quia re∣gitur spiritu sancto.

The popes pardons (saieth frier Syluester their surnamed absolutus theologus) were neuer knowne to vs by the Scrip∣tures, although some alledge S. Paul to the Corinthians for that purpose; neither were they knowne by the ancient fathers, but onely by late writers. For Gregorie is said to haue appoin∣ted seuen yeeres of indulgence, in his stations at Rome. And because the church (of Rome) this doth, and thus obserueth, we must beleeue it to be so, for the church is gouerned by y^e holy ghost. Out of these words I note first, that this frier Syluester was a man of great fame among the papists, & for his singular [ 1] learning reputed an absolute diuine, and therefore that his te∣stimonie must needs be very authenticall among the papists.

I note secondly, that Antoninus a learned papist, who was the archbishop of Florence euen in the altitude of popedome, [ 2] holdeth the selfe same opinion, and hath the very same wordes now recited out of Syluester.

I note thirdly, that popish pardons can neither be proued by the scriptures, nor by the ancient fathers; and consequently, [ 3] that pope Boniface the eight of that name was the first foun∣der thereof, as is already proued. For albeit Syluester seemeth here to ascribe the originall of some kind of pardoning to Gre∣gorie yet doth he onely tel that by heare-say; and besides that, Gregorie either gaue no pardons in deede, (which is very pro∣bable) or at the most, he pardoned after saint Paules manner, some part of seuerity inioyned by the church.

I note fourthly, that the chiefest ground vppon which Po∣pish [ 4] pardoning is built, is the bare and naked commaunde∣ment of the pope. For whatsoeuer the church saith (that is to say the pope) that must be beleeued, because forsooth the pope cannot erre: but yet that he both may erre, and hath alreadie erred de facto; I haue prooued aboundantly in my Booke of Motiues, where the gentle Reader shall finde the opinions of other popish doctors, most fit for this end and purpose. Shame∣lesse and impudent therefore are the papists, when they blush not to father their Romish pardons vpon saint Paul.

The reply.

In the councell of Laterane (which was almost an hundred yeeres before pope Bonifacius) mention is made of pardons

with good liking of the same, yea S. Gregorie appointed sta∣tions and granted pardons for frequenting them.

The answere.

I say first, that in processe of time when sinne increased, and [ 1] the people waxed slow in accomplishing ecclesiasticall satisfac∣tion inioyned; redemptions, and commutations succeeded in the place thereof, and canonicall discipline began to decay, as their owne Burchardus writeth, about the yeere of Christ 1020.

I say secondly, that by little, and little after such redemptions [ 2] & commutations, superstitious opinions were instilled into the minds of the vulgar people, as that the fulfilling of the multe inioined by the church, was necessarie for saluatiō, & able to sa∣tisfie the iust iudgement of God; that god required much more satisfaction then was so inioyned, and that for the same they must either satisfie in this life, or afterward in purgatorie, if they were not pardoned by the pope.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that albeit penance, satisfaction, or canonicall discipline vsed in the olde church and auncient councels, (which was nothing else but a ciuill multe imposed to publike offen∣ders,* 1.332 not to satisfie Gods iudgement, but to bridle ill life, and to keepe comely order in the church) was by little and little changed into superstitious popish satisfaction, yet had not that execrable doctrine gotten place in the church in the time of the Lateran councel.* 1.333 I proue it, because that councel maketh men∣tion onely, de poenitentiis iniunctis, of penance inioyned, which was holden Anno Dom. 2215.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that the bishoppe of Rome (now called Pope 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, might haue released or pardoned in his owne chur∣ches and iurisdiction, (as Cornelius and other good bishoppes did) such ligaments, mults, or canonicall corrections as he had inioyned to publike offenders: and perhappes Gregorie the Great granted some such pardons indeede, but that hee gaue pardons for sinne and to satisfie Gods iustice, as Popes this day doe, it can neuer be proued out of his works.

The fourth obiection.

The blessed virgin Marie, holy Iob and manie others, haue

suffered much more then was needefull for their owne sinnes. And saint Paul saith of himselfe,* 1.334 that he supplied the wants of Christs passion for his church: which super abundant satisfac∣tions of S. Paul and others, bicause they were not determined by themselues to this or that particular person; it pertaineth to the supreme pastour the popes holines, to make application thereof as he seeth cause. Which application is termed par∣doning, for that when the pope applieth twentie degrees of the satisfaction of Christ, or of S. Paul, or some other saint, to one of his nunnes, monkes, or iesuites; then so many degrees of satisfaction are pardoned to such a nunne, monke, or iesuite, which the saide nunne, monke, or iesuite should otherwise haue done, either in this life or else in purgatorie.

The answer.

I say first that no saint did or can suffer so much as is suffici∣ent [ 1] for his sinnes. And I prooue it euidently, because the best learned papists graunt freely and truely, that euery mortall sin hath in it infinite deformitie, as which is an auersion from God of infinite maiestie, and consequently that God requireth infinite satisfaction for the same: yet so it is that pure man is vncapable of euery infinit action (for otherwise he should be an other God;) and consequently, mans actions of which no one among all can be infinite, can not yeeld condigne compensation for one only mortall sin: and yet is euery sin mortall indeed, as I haue prooued in my Motiues, euen by popish doctrine. Per∣vse the eight article of Dissention in the second Booke of the said Motiues, and thou shalt see euidently, that not only Ger∣son, Durand, Baius, Roffensis, and Almayn (who al were renow∣med papists) but euen the common schooles of late dayes doe holde the same opinion.

I say secondly, that God hath alreadie rewarded euerie saint [ 2] in heauen, (as he will also in time rewarde euerie saint nowe on earth) f••r aboue their deserts. Which I prooue briefly by these two reasons: first, because S. Paul so teacheth vs, when he saith that the sufferings of this life,* 1.335 are not worthy of the glory to come. Which saying I haue answered at large in

my Motiues, there answering all replies that can be made a∣gainst [ 2] the same. Secondly, because it is the popes owne doc∣trine, if papistes were constant to their owne writing. For thus writeth their owne deere frier,* 1.336 M. Iohn de Combis; Hoc patet, qui•• deus semper remunerat supra meritum, sicut punit citra condignum: This is euident (saith our holy frier Iohn) because God euermore rewardeth vs aboue our desertes, and puni∣sheth vs lesse then we be worthie. So then the popes holinesse may apply to himselfe, all the superaboundant merites of his holy nunnes, moonkes, and Iesuites, and flee to heauen as a bird without fethers. I say thirdly, that the want whereof the [ 3] apostle speaketh, is not in the proper passion of Christ, which was of infinite vertue, of infinite worthinesse, of infinite digni∣tie; yea, of such force and efficacie, as the least drop of his most pretious bloud (being the bloud both of God and man, by reason of hypostaticall vnion,) was sufficient for the sinnes of the whole world, and of ten thousand thousand worldes mo, if so many had been.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that God in his eternall decree appointed a certaine measure of afflictions, which not onely Christ shoulde suffer in his owne naturall bodie, but also which his mystical body should suffer the congregation of the faithfull, before the full accomplishment of their glory. Which thing is very eui∣dent by the answere made to the holy martyrs concerning their complaintes presented before the maiestie of God. For thus is it written in Gods booke: How long Lord which art holy and true, doest not thou iudge and auenge our bloud, on them that dwell on the earth? and it was said vnto them, that they should rest for a little season,* 1.337 vntill their fellowe seruauntes and their brethren who should be killed as they were, were fulfilled. Thus saith holy writ.

Out of these wordes of the holy scripture, I note first, that God in his secret counsell hath decreed, aswell the number as [ 1] the persons that shall suffer in his church.

I note secondly, that the afflictions of Gods children shall [ 2] not wholly cease, vntill the generall day of doome.

[ 3] I note thirdly, that God will auenge at that dreadfull day, all iniuries done vnto his saintes.

These annotations well obserued, this illation will ma∣nifestly result out of the same; to wit,* 1.338 that the afflictions wher∣of S. Paule speaketh to the Colossians, were not satisfactions for the sinnes of the church: (for so to suffer was the peculiar office of Christ our only sauiour,) but they were testimonies of y^e zeale and patience which ought to be in the church, and of that conformitie which is required betweene the members of the mysticall body and the head. Which sense may easily be ga∣thered out of Anselmus his golden glosse, vpon the apostles wordes in this place. Thus doth he write;

Adimpleo inquit, ea quae desunt. Cui desunt? in carne mea. Nam in carne Christi quam virgo peperit nihil passionum deest,* 1.339 sed omnes in illa passiones sunt impletae; sed adhuc restat pars passionum eius in mea carne, quas quotidie tolero pro vniuersali corpore eius quod est ecclesia. Si enim ab eruditione fidelium ces∣sarem, has passiones ab infidelibus non sustinerem. Sed quia sem∣per ecclesiae studeo prodesse, semper aduersa cogor tolerare.

I fulfill saith he, those thinges that want. To whom doe they want? in my flesh. For in Christes flesh which the virgine bore, no passion at all wanted, but all passions were fulfilled in it; neuerthelesse some part of his passions yet remaineth in my flesh, which I dayly suffer for his vniuersall body which is the church. For if I should leaue off from instructing the faithful, I might be free frō these persecutions of Infidels. But because I euer desire to profite the church, I am alway enforced to a∣bide persecution.

Out of this graue, vertuous, and learned commentarie, I [ 1] note first, that Christes passion was most absolute and perfect in it selfe.

I note secondly, that some passions of Christ yet remained, [ 2] which S. Paule ought to suffer in his flesh. Where obserue by the way, that the afflictions of the faithful, are reputed Christes own passions: for when Paul persecuted his disciples, he cried aloud; Saule, Saule, why persecutest thou me?* 1.340 I am Iesus whom thou persecutest, it is hard for thee to kicke against the pricke.

I note thirdly, that the afflictions which S. Paul susteined, were for the good of the whole church: yet not by the way of [ 3]

satisfaction, but by the ordinary meanes of christian instruction. For as Anselmus truely saith; afflictions came to the apostle, because he preached the gospel. From preaching whereof if he would haue ceased,* 1.341 he might haue been free from his passions here mentioned. Where we must diligently obserue, that God appointed when, where, and how long S. Paul should preach the gospel, for the good of the whole church. In regard wher∣of S. Paule pronounced woe vnto himselfe, if hee shoulde not preach the gospel.* 1.342 To which preaching of the gospel these pas∣sions were annexed, as the complement of Christes passions: not of his passions in himselfe, but in the church his mysticall body. For as hee suffered once for all in himselfe, for the re∣demption of the world, so doth he still suffer daily in his mem∣bers. For he hath appointed his elect to suffer much tribulati∣on, before they shall possesse eternall rest. Notwithstanding that the glory which we expect doth a thousand fold surmount the miserie of our afflictions. First therefore, since the afflic∣tions [ 1] of Gods saints be reputed Christes owne passions: Se∣condly, [ 2] since S. Paule was appointed when, where, and how [ 3] long he should preach the Gospel: Thirdly, since S. Paule, when he wrote to the Colossians, had not preached the gospel [ 4] so simply and so largely as he was appointed: Fourthly, since he coulde not possibly preach the gospel, but perforce hee must [ 5] suffer persecution for the same: Fiftly, since the taske of prea∣ching was inioyned him, for the benefite of the church, which is Christes mysticall body: I conclude, that when S. Paule said he in his flesh supplied y^e wants of Christes passions for his body the church; he meant nothing els thereby, but that he suffered affliction while hee preached the gospel, as God had appointed for the good of his church. And so there is no place in S. Paule for popish pardons, though the papistes glorie a∣boue measure in this text.

The first replie.

Our blessed ladie the virgin Mary, was not onely borne and conceiued without sinne, but liued all her life without sin,

as Saint Austen and the church beleeueth. Therefore she at least, had good store of merites and satisfactions for others; for though she suffered intollerable anguish and griefe, yet had she being free from sinne, no need at all to suffer for her selfe.* 1.343

The answere.

I say first, that what the late churche of Rome beleeueth, is not much materiall; because it is become the whore of Ba∣bylon, [ 1] as I haue prooued copiously.

I say secondly, that though the blessed virgin had great grace and sanctification bestowed on her, as who was not onely the [ 2] mother of man, but of God also; yet was she conceiued in origi∣nall sinne vndoubtedly. For so the holy scripture doth conuince, so the auncient fathers affirme, so the best approoued popishe doctors graunt, and so right reason doth euidently conclude. As by one man (saith the apostles) sinne entered into the world, and death by sinne, and so death went ouer all men, in whom all men haue sinned. Againe, as by the offence of one,* 1.344 the fault came on all men to condemnation, so by the iustifying of one,* 1.345 the benefite abounded towarde all men to the iustification of life. And in another place, there is none righteous, no not one.Againe, in another place;* 1.346 the scripture hath concluded al vnder sin, y^t the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ, should be giuen to them that beleeue. And the holy Psalmographe saith▪ Enter not into iudgement with thy seruaunt,* 1.347 for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified. All which textes and such like are gene∣rally spoken of all, no one nor other is exempt.

S. Ambrose hath a long discourse, in which he prooueth that none but onely Iesus Christ is void of sinne.* 1.348 These among o∣thers are his wordes. Omnes intra retia erant, imò adhuc intra retia sumus; quia nemo sine peccato nisi solus Iesus, quem non cognoscentem peccatum peccatum pro nobis fecit pater. Infra; ve∣nit ad laqueos Iesus, vt Adam solueret; venit liberare quod peri∣erat Omnes retibus tenebamur; nullus alium eruere poterat, cum seipsum non possit eruere.

All were in the nettes, yea we are yet in the nets; because none is without sinne but onely Iesus, whom when hee

knewe no sinne, the father made him a sacrifice for sinne, in our behalfe. Iesus came to the snare, that hee might loose A∣dam; he came to deliuer, that which was lost. We were al ta∣ken in the net, we could not deliuer one another, when no man could deliuer himselfe.

S. Augustine teacheth the same veritie in many places of his workes, but I wil content my selfe with one or two. Thus therfore doth he write vpon the 34. Psalm; sic ergo peccatum domini quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato.* 1.349 Etenim vt cele∣rius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, A∣dam mortuus est propter peccatum, & caro domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata.

Euen so therefore (is it called) the sinne of the Lord, which is made of sinne; because hee tooke flesh from thence, of that masse which had deserued death by reason of sin. For to speake more brieflie; Mary descending of Adam, is dead by reason of Adams sinne; Adam is dead for his owne sin; and our Lords flesh of Mary, is dead to put away sinne.

* 1.350S. Augustine in another place hath these wordes; Proinde corpus Christi quamuis ex carne foeminae assumptum est, quae de illa carnis peccati propagine concepta fuerat; tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo erat illa concepta, nec ipsa erat caro peccati, sed similitudo carnis peccati.

Therefore Christes body, although it were assumpted of the flesh of a woman, which was conceiued of the stocke of the flesh of sinne, yet because it was not so conceiued in it, as it was conceiued: therefore was it not the flesh of sinne, but (only) the similitude of the flesh of sinne.

The same S. Augustine in another place, writeth in this maner;* 1.351 Sine dubio caro Christi non est caro peccati, sed similis carni peccati; quid restat vt intelligamus, nisi ea excepta omnem reliquam humanam carnem esse peccati? & hinc apparet illam concupiscentiam per quam Christus concipi noluit, fecisse in ge∣nere humano propaginē mali; quia Mariae corpus quamuis inde venerit, tamen eam non traiecit in corpus, quod non inde con∣cepit.

Doubtlesse Christes flesh is not the flesh of sinne, but only

like to the flesh of sinne; what therefore must wee vnderstande, but that all other mens flesh besides it, is the flesh of sinne? And heereuppon it is cleare, that that concupiscence by which Christ would not be conceiued, dispersed sin throughout man∣kind, because the body of Marie though it came from thence, yet could it not conuey that into the bodie, which was not con∣ceiued thereupon, (but of the holy ghost.) These words of S. Austen and Saint Ambrose are so plaine and easie, as they neede no declaration,

Thomas Aquinas, albeit hee constantly defendeth, that the blessed virgin was neither borne in sinne, nor yet sinned actu∣ally after hir birth more or lesse, graunteth for all that, that shee was conceiued in originall sinne: and hee prooueth it by two euident reasons, whereof this is one.* 1.352 Sanctificatio de qua loquimur, non est nisi emundatio à peccato originali, culpa au∣tem non potest emundari nisi per gratiam, cuius subiec∣tum est sola creatura rationalis, & ideo ante infusionem ani∣mae rationalis B. virgo sanctificata non fuit.

Sanctification whereof we now speake (saith the cheefest popish doctour,) is nothing else but a clensing from origi∣nall sinne, but sinne cannot bee purged without grace, whose subiect can be nothing but a reasonable creature, and therefore the blessed virgin could not be sanctified from sin, before a rea∣sonable soule was infused into her bodie. This argument of Aquinas is so inuincible in popish manner of proceeding, as no Iesuite in the world (though they all hold the contrarie) can inuent a sufficient solution for the same.

Deuout and holy Bernarde (whose authoritie is great with all Papists) holdeth the same opinion with Aquinas.* 1.353 For al∣beit hee sharply reproue the practise of the cathedrall church of Lions for keeping the festiuitie of the conception of the blessed virgin, calling that practise the noueltie of presumption, the mother of temeritie, sister of superstition, and the daughter of leuitie: yet doth he hold that shee was borne without sinne, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 continued all her life.

All learned men that euer wrote before our seditious lately hatched Iesuites, confesse the conception of the blessed virgin, to haue beene polluted with sinne: and I prooue it by an irre∣fragable

demonstration. First, because the blessed virgin, if she had euer beene free from sinne,* 1.354 should haue needed no Sa∣uiour, nor had anie Sauior, and so Christ should not haue bin her Iesus: which to say, is both against the scripture, and a∣gainst the honour of that holy virgin. Bernardus and Aquinas saw the force of this reason, and grauely vrged the same. Yea, the holy virgin renounceth flatly their hereticall and hypocri∣ticall doctrine, in her humble thankes to God for her saluati∣on.* 1.355 My soule (saith she) doth magnifie the Lord, and my spi∣rit reioyceth in God my sauiour. For this cause Bernard cry∣eth out in these words;* 1.356 Non est hoc virginem honorare, sed ho∣nori detrahere. The virgin is not this way honored, but great∣ly dishonored. Secondly, because as Bernard saieth, Where lust is, there must needs be sinne: and therefore since the virgin was conceiued with lust, or else (as they dare not say) by the holy ghost; it followeth, that she was conceiued in sinne. O∣ther reasons the same Bernard hath, but these may suffice.

The second reply.

But saint Austen saith that hee will alway except the holy virgine Mary, when he disputeth or reasoneth of sinners or sinne.

The answer.

I say first, that saint Austen confesseth flatly (as you haue [ 1] heard) that the blessed virgin was vndoubtedly conceiued in o∣riginal [ 2] sin. I say secondly, that originall sin is of infinite defor∣mitie (as is already proued;) and consequently, that the blessed virgin being polluted therewith, was neuer able to yeeld con∣digne compensation for the same, howe great soeuer her holi∣nesse was afterward: the reason is afore yeelded, for that the infinit malice of sin, surmounteth the value of the finite actions of all creatures. And if she were not able to satisfie for her own sinnes, much lesse had shee any surplussage of satisfaction left, which may serue to binde vp the popes pardons, for the sins of others. I say thirdly, that albeit S. Austen would not for the [ 3] honor of our Sauior, as he saith, call the blessed virgin into que¦stion touching sin; yet doth he not affirm her to haue bin void of

all actual sinne, but seemeth rather to hold the contrary. For he addeth these words, Vnde enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae colla tum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum,* 1.357 quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. For how know we that she had more grace giuen her to ouercome all sinne, who did conceiue and beare him, that certainely was free from al sin? In which words S. Austen sheweth plainly, that he can not tell, whether the blessed virgin was voide of all actuall sinne or no: yet is he vnwilling to call her into question, for the honour of our Lord Iesus, whose mother she was ac∣cording to the flesh. Yea, Saint Austen in his questions vp∣on the new testament, (if it be his worke,) confesseth freely, that she sinned for want of faith. These are his expresse words; Hoc vtique significauit,* 1.358 quia etiam Maria per quam gestum est mysterium incarnationis saluatoris, in morte domini dubitaret, ita tamen vt in resurrectione firmaretur. This verily is signifi∣ed, that Marie by whome was accomplished the misterie of the incarnation of our Sauiour, doubted in the death of our Lord, yet so as she was confirmed in his resurrection. Thus hee writeth, and yet knoweth euerie child, that to doubt in matters of faith is no little sinne.

S. Basil dissenteth nothing from Saint Augustine,* 1.359 when hee telleth vs, that the blessed virgin standing by the crosse, wauered and was doubtfull in her minde, while shee behelde on one side, what miserie hee suffered, on the other side, what wonders he had done.

Saint Chrysostome affirmeth so expressely that the blessed virgin sinned,* 1.360 that their angelicall doctour Aquinas is enfor∣ced to vse this sillie shift, for a colorable answere to his words; to wit, that hee was excessiue in his words. But who wil not rather thinke, that hee was presumptuous in his answere. These are S. Chrysostomes expresse words, Quae estmater mea, & fratres mei aiebat;* 1.361 siquidem nō adhuc debitam de ipso opini∣onem habebant, sed more matrum Maria iure omnia filio se prae∣cepturam censebat, cum tanquam dominum colere & reuereri licebat; ideo in hunc modum respondit: who is my mother, & my brethren said Christ, for they had not yet a right opiniō of him; but Mary after the maner of mothers, thought she might com∣mand

her sonne to do all things, albeit she might well haue honored him as her Lord; therfore did he answer in this maner. Againe he saith thus:* 1.362 Optabat enim vt tam hominum gratiam concilia∣ret, & ipsa clarior filij gratia efficeretur, & fortasse aliquo hu∣mano afficiebatur affectu For she wished, that now he would win the fauor of men, & that she might be more famous for his sake; and perhappes she was touched with some humane affec∣tion. Againe, in another place he saith thus: Ambitione qua∣dam ac ostentatione commoti, foris eum in praesentia omnium e∣uocarunt, vt viderentur facile ac magna cum potestate Christo imperare.* 1.363 Infra; vnde patet inani quadam gloria illos commo∣tos fuisse, nihil adhuc magni de ipso cogitantes, quod apertius Ioannes significauit, dicens; quia neque fratres eius credebant in eum. They being tickled with ambition and vaine glorie, called him out in the presence of all, that they might seeme to command Christ at their pleasure, and with authoritie. Wher∣vpon it is cleare that they were tickled with vaine glorie, ha∣uing no great opinion on him as yet, which Iohn signified e∣uidently, when he saide; For neither did his brethren beleeue in him.

Saint Hierome shall conclude this point, (which I haue handled more at large, because many stumble at it, and fewe seeme to vnderstand it well) these are his expresse words; Con∣clusit Deus omnes sub peccato, vt omnium misereatur, absque eo solo;* 1.364 qui peccatum non fecit, nec inuentus est dolus in ore eius. God hath shut vp all vnder sinne, that he may shew mercie vn∣to all, him onely excepting that sinned not, neither was there guile found in his mouth.

The third replie.

She was Christs mother, and therefore was more blessed then al other women.

The answere.

I confesse willingly, that shee was blessed aboue all wo∣men, and yet that shee was a sinner, and had Christ not one∣ly for her sonne, but euen for her Lorde and Sauiour; nei∣ther was it so great a grace simplie and barely to beare

Christ as the Papists faine it to be: but the holy fathers S. Austen and S. Chrysostome shal tel vs what they thinke ther∣of. S. Austen hath these expresse words. Hoc in ea magnificauit dominus, quia fecit voluntatem patris,* 1.365 non quia caro genuit carnē. Propterea cum dominus in turba admirabilis videretur faciens signa & prodigia, & ostendens quid lateret in carne, ad∣miratae quaedam animae dixerunt, foelix venter qui te portauit: & ille, imò foelices qui audiunt verbum Dei & custodiūt illud; hoc est dicere, & mater mea quam appellatis foelicem, inde foe∣lix quia verbum Dei custodit, non quia in illa verbum caro factum est, & habitauit in nobis; sed quia custodit ipsum ver∣bum Dei per quod facta est, & quod in illa caro factum est.

Our Lord magnified this in her, for that she did the will of his father, not because her flesh bare his flesh. Therfore when our Lord seemed admirable to the people, working signes and myracles, and shewing what was hidde in the flesh, the peo∣ple maruelling saide, happie is the bellie that bare thee, and hee answered; yea happie are they that heare the word of God and keepe it, that is to say, my mother whom ye cal happie, is therefore happie because she keepeth the word of God, not be∣cause the word was made flesh in her and dwelt in vs, but be∣cause shee keepeth Gods worde by which she was made, and which was made flesh in her. Againe, in another place he wri∣teth thus; Beatior ergo Maria percipiendo fidem Christi, quam concipiendo carnem Christi. Nam & dicenti cuidam, beatus ven∣ter qui te portauit, ipse respondit:* 1.366 imo beati quiaudiunt verbum Dei, & custodiunt: denique fratribus eius, id est, secundum carnē cognatis, qui non in eum crediderūt, quid profuit illa cognatio? Sic & materna propinquitas nihil Mariae pofuisset, nisi foelici∣us Christum corde quam carne gestasset. Therefore Marie was more blessed in receiuing the faith of Christ, then in conceiuing y^e flesh of Christ: for he answered to one that said, blessed is the wombe that bare thee: yea, blessed are they that heare the word of God and keepe it. Finally his brethren, that is, his kins∣men in y^e flesh, that beleeued not in him, what good had they by that kinred? And euen so motherly kinred had doone Marie no good, vnlesse shee had borne Christ more blessedly in her heart, then she bare him in her flesh.

S. Chrysostome hath these expresse words. Ea sententia dic∣tum existima,* 1.367 non quod matrem negligeret, sed quod nihil vtili∣tatis ei matris nomē allaturū ostēderet▪ nisi bonitate & fide prae∣staret. Infra, Nam si id profuturum erat per se Mariae, profuisset etiam Iudaeis, quorum consanguineus erat Christus secundum carnem, profuisset ciuitati in qua natus est, profuisset fra••ribus. Atqui dum fratres verum suarum curam habuerunt, nihil eis propinquitatis nomen profuit, sed cum reliquo mundo dam∣nati erant. Thinke that Christ spoke that, not because he had no care of his mother, but because he woulde shew the name of a mother to profit her nothing, vnlesse she were better in pietie and faith. For if that could haue done Marie good of it selfe, it would also haue profited the Iewes, it would haue profited the citie in which he was borne, it would haue profited his bre∣thren: but while our Lords brethren set their hearts vpon their owne worldly matters, the name of kinred did them no good at all, they were damned with others in the world.

The fift obiection.

Nathan the Prophet brought word to Dauid, that God had forgiuen him his sinne, and that he should not die, neuerthelesse because Dauid caused Gods enimies to blaspheme by reason of that his sin, God punished him by the death of his child. So Dauid being penitent for his sinne in numbring the people,* 1.368 obtained remission of the fault, and yet suffered three daies pe∣stilence in his people. So God forgaue the Israelites their rebellious murmurings against him,* 1.369 & yet for that fault none of them coulde enter into the lande of promise: so in baptisme also our sinnes are freely forgiuen vs, and yet do we still suffer temporall paines for the same, al the daies of our life. Which texts of holy scripture, and others of like sort do plainely insi∣nuate,* 1.370 that after God hath forgiuen vs our sins, and remitted both the fault and the eternall paine, there still remaineth some temporall satisfaction to bee done for the same, either in this world or in purgatorie, which satisfaction is accomplished in the popes pardons, while he maketh application of the supera∣boundant passions of holy men and women, locked vp in the treasure of the church of Rome.

The answere.

I say first, that when God forgiueth vs any sin, he freeth vs as wel from the pain as frō the fault: which I proue by many rea∣sons. [ 1] First because otherwise Gods works should be impefect, though holy writ hold them most perfect, when it saith, Dei per∣fecta sunt opera, Gods works are perfect: which in the origi∣nall and Hebrew is vttered more significantly,* 1.371 where God is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a stone or rocke, noting vnto vs that his workes are done with power and might, and therefore with all exact perfection. And doubtles, if his act in forgiuing sin be perfect, as it is most perfect, then after God hath remitted the fault, there can remain no satisfactiō for the same. Secondly if mans act should bee a partiall satisfaction for sinne, then coulde not Christ be a perfect and absolute redeemer; but as it were a ioynt redeemer, together with man. Thirdly, the fault is ne∣uer truly & perfectly forgiuen, where payment is still required for the same. Fourthly, God (who is faithful in al his promi∣ses) hath promised to forget all our iniquities, when soeuer we truely become penitent for the same; & yet can be not possiblie forget that, for which he requireth our satisfaction. Fiftly,* 1.372 the papists grant with vniform consent generally, that in baptisme & martyrdome god remits sins wholly and perfectly, aswel in respect of the pain as of the fault, and yet can they neuer yeeld any sufficient disparitie, betweene the forgiuenes of our sins, be∣fore & after baptisme, whereupon they may build their fondly forged satisfaction. This is a mighty reason, as which troubled me al the while I was a papist, & because I could neuer reade or inuent anie sufficient solution to the same (though at that time I would most willingly haue done it,) it was one motiue to excite mee against their superstitious and idololatricall doc∣trine: in regard hereof, grauely, learnedly, and christianly saith S. Augustine,* 1.373 Christus communicando nobiscum sine culpa poe∣nam, & culpam soluit & poenam: Christ while hee tooke part with vs of our paine without sin, purged vs both from the sin and from the paine due for sin. I say secondly, that the punish∣ment [ 2] which God layeth on vs, after he hath remitted and for∣giuen vs our sins, are not satisfactions for our sins committed, but they are fatherly correctious to teach vs our duties to mi∣nister to vs fit matter of spiritual exercises, and to keep vs and

others from sinne to come; as also to ingraffe in our hearts, how odious a thing sin is in Gods sight. This to be so, Chry∣sostome rightly surnamed Os aureum,* 1.374 golden mouth, vttereth very perspicuously in these golden words; Nam ne peccantes & inulti manentes nos efficeremur deteriores non remisit nobis sup∣plicium, sed vidit hoc manifeste, quod peccatis ipsis non m••nus damnosum sit non puniri; propter hoc imponit poenam, non exi∣gens supplicium de peccatis, sed ad futura nos corrigens. For lest we our selues should be made worse, if wee should not be punished when we offend; God forgaue vs not the punishment, for that he saw euidently, that it was no lesse hurtfull to sinne it selfe, if it should not be punished. For which cause he impo∣seth paine vpon vs, not requiring satisfaction for the sinnes, but correcting vs for that which is to come. Out of these wordes I note first, that if we should escape vnpunished when we sin, we would be more prone to sin again. I note secondly, that the punishment which God la••eth on vs, is not any part of satisfac∣tion for our sinne committed, but a fatherly correction to keepe vs from sinning so againe. I note thirdly, that saint Chryso∣stome was not acquainted with popish pardons, wherewith the world is this day so pestered. I note fourthly, that whosoeuer disliketh this my answer, must reprooue saint Chrysostome for the same, as from whom I receiued it. And yet indeede, hee saith nothing which holy writ hath not taught vs long before. For as wise Salomon saith,* 1.375 He that spareth the rodde, hateth the childe; but he that loueth him, chasteneth him betime. I blesse thee (saith Tobie) O Lord God of Israel;* 1.376 because thou hast scourged me:* 1.377 Thou hast corrected me (saith Ephraim) and I was chastised as an vntamed heiffer. Whom the Lord lo∣ueth (saith saint Paul) him he chasteneth;* 1.378 and he scourgeth e∣uery sonne that he receiueth. As many as I loue (saith God) I rebuke and chasten,* 1.379 be zealous therefore and amend. Marke these wordes well, gentle Reader. God correcteth vs not in way of satisfaction, which we are neuer able to performe (as I haue prooued more at large in my booke of Motiues;) but that we may repent, turne to him, and amend our sinfull liues. For this cause saieth the Psalmograph; Blessed is the man whom thou chastisest (O Lord) and teachest him in thy lawe;* 1.380

that thou mayest giue him rest from the dayes of euill, while the pit is digged for the wicked. For as saint Paul saieth, If we would iudge our selues (by true faith and repentance) wee should not be iudged. But when we are iudged,* 1.381 we are chaste∣ned of the Lord, that wee should not be condemned with the world: which Christ himselfe confirmed, when he willed the adultresse to goe and to sinne no more.* 1.382

The sixt obiection.

S. Paul exhorted the Corinthians, who abounded in goods,* 1.383 but wanted merites, to bestow money largely on the saints at Ierusalem, that so they might be partakers of their merites. Therefore it is very lawful to procure pardon with our mony, by the application of godly mens merites vnto vs.

The answere.

S. Paul meaneth nothing lesse, then that the Hierosolymi∣tains should sell spirituall things for money. For when Sy∣mon the sorcerer euen after his baptisme,* 1.384 would haue bought the distribution of holy things with money: then saide saint Peter to him, Thy money perish with thee; because thou thin∣kest, that the gift of God may be gotten with money. But the apostle exhorteth the richer sort at Corinth, to minister compe∣tently to the faithfull at Ierusalem, for their necessarie releefe and sustentation: and this to do the rather, for that heretofore they receiued the gospel from thence, so that there may bee an analogicall or proportionable equalitie betweene them. For liberalitie ought to be mutuall among christians: and as the a∣postle saith in another place,* 1.385 It is no great thing for them that haue sowen to vs spirituall things, to reape part of our carnall things. Thus seemeth Chrysostome to vnderstand this place, whose wordes are these;* 1.386 Haec autem dicebat etiam diuitum su∣perbiam deprimens, ostendens quod post hanc vitam in maiori dignitate spirituales futuri sint: He spake these things to abate the pride of rich men, shewing that after this life the godly shal be in greater dignitie: as if he had saide, esteeme not better of

your selues, because ye haue more worldly wealth; but distri∣bute such things liberally, and seeke to abound in spirituall things, that so there may be an equalitie.

The seuenth obiection.

The article of our creed (I beleeue the communiō of saints) doth plainely shew, that ones satisfaction may be applied to an other, which is that application that the pope maketh, when he giues pardons.

The answer.

I answer, that the duties of charitie, are & ought to be com∣mon among the faithfull, in that they are the mysticall mem∣bers of one mysticall body;* 1.387 which saint Paul proueth to be so, by the example of the members in mans body. And this is that communion of saints, whereof mention is made in the Creede apostolike. But of popish pardons and merits of supererroga∣tion, this article maketh no relation at all. Yea, as the apostle saith,* 1.388 al righteousnes, remission of sins, and eternall life, is mi∣nistred to the members of the church by Christ the head. Of whose fulnes we haue all receiued,* 1.389 euen grace for grace.

CHAP. VI. Of Popish purgatorie.

OF popish purgatorie I haue spoken sufficiently, in the se∣uenth chapter of the second booke of my Motiues. It will therefore here be sufficient to declare the originall thereof, and to solue the obiections against the same.

The superstitious & fond fantasies of purgatorie came from the old heathen Romanes; for as saint Austen recordeth, they had a purgatorie sacrifice:* 1.390 these are his words; Ideo terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt, cum fit sacrum purga∣torium quod vocant Februm, vnde mensis nomen accepit. Ther∣fore men say, that the ends of things are celebrated in the same moneth of Februarie, when the purgatorie sacrifice is made which they call Februs, whereupon the month tooke the name. Afterward Origen being too much addicted to his allegoricall speculation,* 1.391 fained many odde things touching purgatorie, as the ethnicke Plato (whom he much imitateth) had done before him. After Origen others began to cal the matter into question,

others rashly to beleeue it, others to adde many things to Ori∣gens conceit. Thus by little and little it encreased,* 1.392 till the late bishops of Rome made it an article of popish faith. But of what credite Origen ought to be in this point, his owne opini∣on will declare sufficiently, as who held that the diuels should all be purged at the latter day. For of Origen thus writeth S. Austen;* 1.393 Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes qui & ipsum diabolum atque angelos eius post grauiora pro meritis & diuturniora supplicia, ex illis cruciatibus eruendos atque soci∣andos sanctis angelis credidit. Wherein Origen doubtles was more compassionable, who beleeued that the deuill himselfe & his angels, after great & long punishment for their demerites, should be deliuered from their torments, and placed with the holy angels.* 1.394 And Lodouicus Ʋiues vpon the same place of S. Austen hath these wordes; Et istos quoque supplicijs liberabat Origenes, sicut ex sanctis angelis praecedente tempore diabolos faciebat, quae illius erant vicissitudines. These also did Ori∣gen deliuer from punishment, as in processe of time he made of angels diuelles, such was his changeable course of dealing.

Roffensis our late popish bishoppe of Rochester confesseth a trueth in this matter; to wit,* 1.395 that the Greekes did neuer beleeue there was a purgatorie. Againe, that purgatorie was not receiued in all places at once, neither yet generally for many hundred yeeres. His wordes I haue alleadged in the first booke of my Motiues, in the seuenth preamble.

The first obiection.

I haue loosed thy prisoners out of the pit,* 1.396 wherein there is no water: Ergo, (saith our Iesuite Bellarmine) there is a pur∣gatorie, for out of hell none can be loosed.

The answer.

I answer,* 1.397 that the prophet means nothing els but that God will deliuer his church out of all dangers, howe great soeuer they seeme. Againe, this text may fitly be expounded of hell, as Saint Hierome taketh it. His wordes are these; In san∣guine passionis tuae eos qui vincti in carcere tenebantur

inferni, in quo non est vlla misericordia, tua clementia libera∣sti. Thou hast deliuered in the bloud of thy testament of thy free mercie, those that were bound in the prison of hell, where there is no mercy. And indeed the merite of Christes bloud preserued vs from hell, which otherwise was prepared for vs. This text may also be vnderstood of the captiuitie of Babylon, from whence the church was deliuered.

The second obiection.

We went through fire and water, and thou hast brought vs to a place of comfort or refreshing. By this place it is cleere, that there is a purgatorie.* 1.398

The answere.

I say first, that before hell had no water in it, but now there is found both fire and water, such is the constancie of popishe diuinitie.

I say secondly, that by fire and water the prophet here vnder∣standeth, the victories which martyrs haue had in their mani∣fold passions. That is to say, martyrs after all their crosses, miseries, and afflictions, are brought to Christ their head and true comfort. Thus doth S. Hierome expound this place, whose expresse wordes are these;* 1.399 Martyrum hic ostendit victorias, quas in diuersis passionibus meruerunt; & ad vnum eos dicit refri∣gerium, id est, Christum Dominum, per laqueos, per cruces, per verbera, per ignes aestusq, & alia diuersa supplicia (per quae & holocaustum acceptum effecti sunt) peruenisse. Hee sheweth the victories of martyrs, which they were worthie of in their mani∣fold passions; and hee saith they came to a place of refreshing, that is,* 1.400 to Christ our Lord, through snares, through crosses, through beatinges, through fire and heate, and diuers other tortures, (through which they became an acceptable sacrifice.) S. Austen expoundeth it, in the selfe same maner.

The third obiection.

* 1.401They cried to the Lord in their trouble, and hee deliuered them from their distresse. Hee brought them out of darkenes,

and out of the shadowe of death, and brake their bandes asun∣der: Ergo there is a purgatory.

The answere.

I answere, that the whole Psalme containeth in effect no∣thing els, but thankes giuing to the Lord for his great mercie, in that he hath deliuered them not onely from hell iustly deser∣ued for their sinnes,* 1.402 but also from the manifold dangers of this life. So writeth S. Austen vpon this Psalme,* 1.403 and S. Hierome is of the same opinion. For these are his expresse wordes; Vin∣ctum enim erat genus humanum catenis criminum, & carceri diaboli mancipatum. For mankinde was bound with the chaines of sinne, and kept in prison as a slaue by the diuell.

The 4. obiection.

He shall fine the sonnes of Leui,* 1.404 and purifie them as gold and siluer, that they may bring offeringes vnto the Lord in righteousnesse. Which fining say our papistes, cannot be vn∣derstood but of purgatorie.

The answere.

I answere, that the prophet Malachie speaketh flatly, of the first aduent of our Sauiour Iesus Christ; who by his bitter and sacred passion, will purge his church from all her sinnes,* 1.405 and then shall the faithfull offer vp the sacrifice of land and thankesgiuing. Thus doth S. Hierome expound this text, nei∣ther can any other glosse be consonant to the discourse of the prophet.

The 5. obiection.

S. Mathew saith,* 1.406 that the sinne of the holy ghost shalbe for∣giuen, neither in this worlde, neither in the worlde to come. By which wordes he giueth vs to vnderstand, that some sinnes are forgiuen in the world to come; Ergo there is a purgatorie.

The answere.

I answere, that Gods spirite knoweth best how to inter∣pret the scripture, and consequently that S. Mathew meaneth nothing els by these wordes, (neither in this world, neither

in the world to come) but that the sinne against the holy ghost, shall neuer be forgiuen. For so doth S. Marke, another Euan∣gelist, interprete this selfe same text. These are the wordes; hee that blasphemeth against the holy ghost,* 1.407 shall neuer haue forgiuenesse, but is culpable of eternal damnation. Yea, which is a confusion to the papists. S. Mathew himself so expoundeth himselfe,* 1.408 in the next verse aforegoing. And so doth S. Chryso∣stome expound this place.

The 6. obiection.

* 1.409Thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paied the vtter∣most farthing. Ergo, after satisfaction made, or the popes par∣don graunted, thou maiest come out of purgatory.

The answere.

I answere with S. Augustine, that the prison whereof S. Mathew speaketh is hell,* 1.410 from whence there is no departure in deed. For hee that is once committed thither for non payment; must tarry there world without end, because hee can neuer an∣swere this infinite debt.

The replie.

When he saith (vntill thou hast paied) hee giueth vs to vn∣derstand, that after a certaine time, we shall come out. I aun∣swere, that the word (vntill) doth not connotate the end of im∣prisonment, but the continuation thereof: because so is the vsual acception of that terme, in the holy scriptures. For when S. Mathew saith, (he knew her not vntil she had brought forth her first borne sonne:) it followeth not, that he afterward knew the blessed virgine.* 1.411 So when it is said, (that Michol had no child to the day of her death) it followeth not, y^t she had children after her death.* 1.412 Thirdly, when our Sauiour promised to be with his disciples till the worldes end, it doth not import that he wil af∣ter forsake them. Fourthly, when the prophet saith, (as the eyes of a maiden looke vnto y^e hands of her mistres,* 1.413 so our eyes wait vpon the Lord our God, vntill hee haue mercy vpon vs) he meaneth not that our eies shal not afterward wait vpon the Lord.* 1.414 No, God forbid. Fiftly, when God saith (sit thou at my right hand, vntil I make thine enemies thy footstoole) he mea∣neth not,* 1.415 that Christ shall sit no longer on his right hand. No, no, God auert.

The 7. obiection.

If any man build on this foundation, golde, siluer, pretious stones, timber, hay, or stubble;* 1.416 euery mans worke shalbe made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shalbe reuealed by the fire, and the fire shall trie euery mans work of what sort it is. This fire the holy fathers doe vnderstand of purgatorie. Ergo it ought not to be denied.

The answere.

I say first, that all the fathers as well old as latter writers, confesse that S. Paules discourse is altogither metaphoricall; & [ 1] consequently y^t no doctrine of faith can be grounded thereupon.

I say secondly, that the old writers dissent one from another, in the exposition of his text. For S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth [ 2] it of hell fire;* 1.417 S. Hierome of Gods examination in the day of general iudgment; S. Gregorie of the fire of tribulation in this life; S. Ambrose and S. Theodoret, of the fire of Gods iudge∣mēt, & others otherwise. Gregorius Magnus hath these expresse words;* 1.418 Quamuis hoc de igne tribulationis in hac vita nobis ad∣hibito possit intelligi; albeit this place may be vnderstood, of the fire of tribulation which we suffer in this life. Out of which words I note, that although this Gregory thought there was a purgatory of small sins after this life, yet did he confesse, y^t this place could proue no such thing. Hereunto I adde, that if either this text, or any other had been a sufficient warrantize for pur∣gatory; aswel the Greekes as the ancient fathers, would haue receiued it; both which their own Roffensis denieth,* 1.419 as is alrea∣dy proued. I say thirdly, that it cānot possibly be vnderstood of purgatory: and I proue it effectually. First, because al martyrs [ 3] go straight to heauen, as al papists confesse. Secondly, because al such as haue plenary pardons frō the pope, escape purgatory, & go the ready way to heauē. Thirdly because, Ieremy, Iob. Ioh. Baptist, the blessed virgine,* 1.420 & sundry others (in whose passions of supererogation, they build the treasure of the church and popish pardons) could neuer come in purgatory; and yet doth the text say, that all aswel good as bad, must be tried by that fire, whereof the apostle speaketh in this place.

I say fourthly, y^t the apostle here speaketh of y^e fire of proba∣tion, but not of purgation, as y^e papists would haue him to doe.* 1.421 These are y^e words; vniuscuius{que} opus quale sit, ignis probabit.

the fire shal trie euery ones worke, of what sorte it is. Which S. Austen well obserued, when he wrote in this maner; Ignis de quo locutus est eo loco apostolus Paulus, talis debet intelligi, vt ambo per eum transeant;* 1.422 id est & qui aedificat supra hoc fun∣damentum, aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos; & qui aedificat ligna, foenum, stipulam. The fire whereof the apostle Paul spea∣keth in that place, must be vnderstood to be such an one, that both sorts may passe through it; that is, aswel he that buildeth vpon this foundation, gold, siluer, or pretious stones, as he that buildeth wood, hay, or stubble.

I say fiftly, that all thinges spoken of in this text, are taken [ 5] metaphorically, gold, siluer, and pretious stones, doe signifie sound doctrine; timber, hay, and stubble, signifie, false doctrine; the builders are such as teach that doctrine; the day signifieth time, the daughter of trueth; and the fire signifieth Gods spirit, which reuealeth all trueths,* 1.423 & maketh false doctrine knowen. This exposition is gathered out of the circumstances of the text it selfe, out of S. Ambrose, and S. Austen, and out of late popish writers. For their owne Hofmeisterus (if my memory faile me not) and their Gagnaeius also, haue this interpretation in flat and expresse termes. It is long since I read them, and I haue not now their bookes at hand; otherwise, I would haue alledged their wordes.

I say sixtly, that al such as would ground popish purgatory [ 6] vpon this text, are enforced to confesse and admit manifold ab∣surdities. And for triall hereof, togither with that which is al∣ready said; these wordes of our Iesuite Bellarmine may suffice. Respondeo, nos cogi ab ipso textu ad aequiuocationem non vnam, sed duas admittendas.* 1.424 I answere, that the very text doth com∣pell vs, to admit more then one equiuocation.

The 8. obiection.

What shall they do, which are baptised for dead? if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then baptised for the dead? out of this place, (as our Iesuite Bellarmine supposeth) nay as hee braggingly boasteth,* 1.425 is popish purgatorie prooued vndoub∣tedly.

The answer.

I say first, that great is the impudencie of our Iesuit, who glorieth so much in his late Romish exposition, which neither [ 1] any one of the ancient fathers approueth, neither yet sundrie of his owne fellowes will admit. For Epiphanius, Theodore∣tus, Chrysostomus, Tertullianus, Ambrose, Sedulius, Anselmus, Oecumenius, Haymo and Theophilactus, do expound it flatly a∣gainst our Romish Iesuite; and so doe also his owne deare fel∣lowes Aquinas and Caietanus. I say secondly, that S. Paul [ 2] vnderstandeth by those that are baptised for dead; such as are at the point of death, and are reputed as dead, or for dead,* 1.426 & this saith S. Epiphanius, is the true meaning of the Apostle: and that he saith truely, I appeale to the true iudgement of the indifferent reader. These are the words of Epiphanius; Alii rectè hoc dictum interpretantes dicunt, quod morti vicini si fue∣rint in pietatis doctrina instructi, ob hanc spem ante obitum la∣vacro digni fiunt; ostendentes quod qui mortuus est etiam resur∣get, & ob id indiget remissione peccatorū per lauacrū. Others interpret this saying of the apostle truly, & say, that such as are at the point of death, if they be instructed christiāly, are for this hope worthie of baptising before they die: thereby signifying, that he which is dead shall rise againe; and for that ende, hath need of remission of his sins by baptisme. This then is the true meaning of S. Paul in this place,* 1.427 what shall they do which are baptised for dead? that is, which are rather reputed for dead then for liuing. Wherefore are they baptised, if the dead rise not againe? for since they cannot be baptised for anie commodi∣tie of this life, (which presently they must forsake, being so ex∣treamely sicke) their baptisme prooueth the resurrection of the dead. And where our Iesuit listeth to wrangle vpon the words (pro illis, for them,) it shall suffice to tell him, that their latin so magnified edition is false, and that in the originall and Greeke copies, it is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the dead, and so his cauill is not worth a figge.

The ninth obiection.

S. Paul saith, that in the name of Iesus euery knee voweth, both of things in heauen, and things in earth,* 1.428 and things vnder

the, earth; but the damned in hell blaspheme Christ, ergo there be some vnder the earth, that is, in purgatorie, which worship and adore Christ.

The answer.

I answere, that the bowing of the knee (whereof the apostle speaketh) doth not signify worship or adoration, but that subiec∣tion which shalbe shewed openlie in the last iudgement, when and where the deuilles as well as men and the good angels, shall yeeld homage and dominion vnto Christ. For so S. Paul expoundeth S. Paul, in his epistle to the Romaines: and S. Luke recordeth,* 1.429 that the deuill falleth prostrate before Christ, and acknowledgeth his power ouer him:* 1.430 which is that bow∣ing of the knee, whereof S. Paul speaketh. Other expositions whatsoeuer, are repugnant to the text.

The replie.

S. Iohn saith, that hee heard all the creatures which are in heauen, and on earth, and vnder the earth, and in the sea, and al that are in them,* 1.431 saying in this maner, praise, and honor, and glorie, and power, be vnto him that sitteth vpon the throne, and vnto the Lambe for euermore. Therefore they be vnder the earth, which truely worship Christ, and consequently, since the deuils (as yee grant) do rather blaspheme then worship Christ; they that worship Christ vnder the earth, must needes bee the soules in purgatory.

The answere.

I answere, that S. Iohn meaneth nothing els, then that which S. Paul hath vttered: he vseth the figure Prosopopeia, & after the vsuall course of the scriptures, causeth things sense∣lesse, and voide of reason, to sounde out the praise of God: so saith the Psalmograph Dauid; All thy workes praise thee, O Lord,* 1.432 and thy saints blesse thee▪ and in another place thus; The heauens declare the glorie of God,* 1.433 and the firmament sheweth the worke of his hands: yea, as the prophet saith, and as the three holy Hebrewes sang,* 1.434 fire, heate, winter, summer, frost, snow, light, darkenesse, the starres, the sunne, the moone, and creatures blesse the Lord.* 1.435

The tenth obiection.

* 1.436S. Iohn saith, that no vncleane thing shall enter into heauen, but many depart out of this life, which are not pure, ergo such must be purged in purgatorie, before they come in heauen.

The answere.

I say first, that faith in Christ Iesus can as well purge a man in this life, as the Popes pardons: and yet as your selues [ 1] teach vs, a plenarie indulgence will salue this impuritie.

I say secondly, that it is a needelesse thing to establish popish purgatorie, because popish pardons supplie the want thereof. [ 2] This is proued copiously in my booke of Motiues.

I say thirdly, that the faithfull and elect children of God, haue their cleanenesse before him in Christ his sonne, with [ 3] which they may enter into heauen. For as S. Iohn saith, they haue washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lambe; who (as S. Paul saith,) when hee knew no sinne,* 1.437 was yet made the sacrifice for sin,* 1.438 that we might be the righte∣ousnes of God in him. And as S. Peter saith, their hearts are purified by faith: yea, as Christ himself saith,* 1.439 his sacred word hath made them cleane. In fine, holy Writ pronounceth them blessed that die in the Lord, & that they rest from their labors. Which being so, they neither haue any impurity,* 1.440 nor suffer a∣ny purgatorie paine.

The replie.

You all confesse, that your inherent iustice is vnperfect and impure, and so your vncleanenes must be taken away after this life, be fore yee come into heauen; ergo there is a purgatorie.

The answere.

I answere, that original concupiscence is an inseperable acci∣dēt during this life, aswel in you as in vs, but as it is proper to this state, so is it taken away in that very instant, in which our state is altered.

The 11. obiection.

S. Peter saith, that God raised vp Christ after he had loosed the sorrows of hel. This place saith our Iesuite,* 1.441 must needs be vnderstood of purgatory: for first, it cānot be meant of the dam∣ned, because their paines shal neuer end. Secondly, it cannot be meant of the sorrowes of Christ, because they were finished on the crosse. Thirdly, it cannot be meant of the fathers in Limbo,* 1.442 because they had no paine at all: it therefore remaineth, that it be meant of the sorrowes which soules abide in purgatorie.

The answere

I say first, that if their Latin text were sound, this obiection would solue it selfe: for the originall and Greeke text is this;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hauing loosed the sorrowes of death. Out of which words, nothing can be gathered, that fauoreth purga∣tory [ 2] any thing at al. I say secondly, that if it were as y^e papists do reade, (the sorrowes of hel being loosed) their soules should alwayes feele paine, but neuer haue an end. Which cannot be truely verified, of their purgatorie fire.

I say thirdly, that the fathers whō the papists hold to haue [ 3] bin in Limbo at that time, did according to their owne doctrine suffer poenam damni,* 1.443 because they were not as yet partakers of the cleare vision beatificall: which Bellarmine granteth in another place, and so is repugnant to himselfe. But let that be deemed a small fault in a Iesuite, which is thought a great crime in another man. Adde hereunto, that poena damni is a greater pain then poena sensus, by their best popish diuinitie. I [ 4] say fourthly, that by the sorrows of death is meant nothing els but the bitter paines which Christ suffered vpon the crosse, to accomplish mans redemption. For then did he properly & per∣fectly triumph ouer death, when he rose againe from death, who was deliuered to death for our sins, (saith Saint Paul) and is risen againe for our iustification: And the verie words of the text next following in the Actes,* 1.444 doe confirme this exposition: for there it is thus written; whome God raised vp and loosed the sorrowes of death, because it was vnpossible that he should be holden of it: as if S. Peter had said; although the passion of Christ was so bitter & exceeding great, as implying the curse and malediction due for our sinnes (insomuch that the remem∣brance therof caused him to sweate out drops of blood) yet could not death possiblie preuaile against him, but that he should rise againe, and conquer both hel and it.

The replie.

Although the greek word in the 24. verse signifieth death, yet in the 27 verse it signifieth hel, and so the sense is against you.

The answere.

I answer, that the hebrew word in the psalme, from whence this sentence is taken,* 1.445 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and signifieth, a sepulchre or graue, and so doth your owne great linguiste Arias Montanus interpret it: as if the Prophet hadde saide, thou wilt not leaue my soule or life, in the graue. For the course

of holy scripture, doth comprehende our life vnder the name of the Soule: so saith the Prophet Ionas, therefore now O Lord take I beseech thee; my soule from me,* 1.446 for it is better for me to die, then to liue. So is it in the Hebrew and original, and yet by the word (soule) must we vnderstād life: for so the words following, doe require of necessitie: so saith Paul,* 1.447 trouble not your selues, anima enim ipsius in ipso est, for his soule (that is, his life) is in him: And a litle after, he saith thus;* 1.448 neither is my soule deare to me, so I may fulfil my course;* 1.449 where by y^e word (soule) life must needs be vnderstood. So Ioseph was bidden to take the babe and his mother,* 1.450 & to go into the land of Isra∣el; because they were dead, that sought the babes soule, that is, his life: so Christ saith, that a good shepheard giueth his soule for the sheepe, that is, his life. These and other like places doe proue euidently that our soule in the scriptures, is taken for our life; so that when the scripture saith, God wil not suffer Christs soule to tarrie in the graue, it meaneth Christs life; as if it shoulde say, Christ shal not be long dead, death shall not swallow him vp, or preuaile against him.

The 12. obiection.

Saint Austen and other of the fathers, haue taught flatly that there is a purgatorie; and therefore whosoeuer denieth purga∣tory opposeth himselfe against the fathers.

The answere.

I say first, that I haue said sufficiently for the authoritie of [ 1] the fathers, in my booke of Motiues, in the ninth chap. of cre∣dit due vnto writers. I say secondly, that the fathers as they [ 2] were men, so had they their imperfections and errors, & are no lesse reiected of the papists when they make against them, then of vs. Yea, no man reiecteth the fathers with such temeritie; as doth the Iesuite Bellar. when he dislikes them. This is proued in my book of Motiues. I say thirdly, that thogh sundry of the [ 3] fathers seeme to grant that there is a purgatorie, yet do they it so doubtfully, so vnconstantly, so coldly, as none of thē do or can make it an article of our belief. And for proofe hereof, one only, S. Austin may suffice for the rest.* 1.451 In one place he writes in this manner; Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & vtrum ita sit quaeri potest. It is not incredible, but

that some such thing may be after this life, and it is a question, whether there be anie such thing or no. Again in another place, after he hath discoursed largely of purgatory, in y^e end he cōclu∣deth doubtfully thus,* 1.452 Non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est, I doe not reprooue it, because perhaps it is true. Again in an∣other place, he hath these expresse words; Siue ergo in hac vita tantum homines ista patiuntur,* 1.453 siue etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam iudicia subsequūtur, non abhorret quantum arbitror a ratione veritatis iste intellectus huius sententiae. Whether ther∣fore men suffer these things onely in this life, or also after this life some such iudgementes follow; this interpretation as I thinke is not repugnant to reason. Thus we see cleerely, howe vnconstant and how cold S. Austens doctrine is, concerning po∣pish purgatorie.

The 13. obiection.

The ancient fathers both praied and offered vp sacrifice for the dead; which they would neuer haue done, if there had not been a purgatorie.

The answere.

I say first, that sundry of the fathers praied for the dead, who [ 1] neuer once dreamed of popish purgatory Which thing is so ful¦ly proued in my Motiues, as may be sufficient for this obiection.

[ 2] I say secondly, that in the hote persecutions of the primitiue church, when martyrs were daily put to death for confessing Christ Iesus; then the church did offer the sacrifice of laud and thankesgiuing, & did celebrate anniuersaries or annuall memo∣ries of her faithful children;* 1.454 in which memories were publickly named al such persons, as died constantly for the christian faith. Not by that meanes to procure any merite, remission, or satis∣faction to those blessed martyrs, (for as y^e papists graunt, mar∣tyrs need no such thing,* 1.455) but so to excite the liuing after their godly example, boldly to confesse the name of Christ, and therin to be ready to yeeld vp their liues; when time and place should so require. I say thirdly, that they praied for y^e dead, to insinuate [ 3] their hope in the resurrection, to mitigate their own sorrow, and to declare their affection towards the dead.* 1.456 But neuer did anie of the approoued antiquitie, pray in such sort for the dead, as [ 4] the papists this day doe. I say fourthly, that the praiers which

the old fathers vsed, ministred great occasiō to that superstitiō, which is now an high point of Romish religion. For the igno∣rant posteritie, wrested euery thing to serue their turne.

I say fiftly, that as the fathers were excited to pray for the [ 5] dead, of a certaine natural affection towards them; so were they doubtful what effect their praiers shuld haue, and whether they did profite the dead or no. Yea, some of the fathers praied onely for the resurrection of the body, as I haue prooued in my Mo∣tiues. The vncertaintie & doubts which the other fathers had,* 1.457 shal appeare euidently by S. Austens testimony. First, therfore S. Austen praied for his mother, & that she might haue remissi∣on of her sins, (for I will conceale nothing y^t seemeth to make for the papists:) & yet did S. Austen thus pray, only to shew his louing & ardent affection towards his mother, & not to procure any remittall for her sins; as whose sins he constantly beleeued, were already pardoned. For these are his expresse wordes. Et credo iam feceris, quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine. And I verily beleue, y^t thou hast already done as I de∣sire; yet Lord accept my inward affection, vttered by my lippes. Out of which words I note, that Austen beleeued his mothers sins to be forgiuen, before he praied for her: and that the end and intent of his praier was only this; to shew that he was natural∣ly and dutifully affected to his mother. Vpon which kinde of vndiscreet zeale, great superstition and flat idolatry followed in his posteritie, as I said before. Secondly, S. Austen hauing distinguished three sortes of dead; to wit, very good, very euill,* 1.458 and neither very good nor very euill, affirmeth y^t praiers made for the very bad & damned soules, do make their dānation more tollerable. These are his expresse wordes; Pro valde malis etsi nulla sunt adiumenta mortuorū, qualescun{que} viuorū consolatio∣nes sunt. Quibus autem prosunt, aut ad hoc prosunt, vt sit plena remissio, aut certe vt tolerabilior fiat ipsa damnatio. For the very bad although they be no helpes to the dead, yet are they some solace to the liuing. And whom they profite, they profite for this, that either they may haue full remission, or that their dānation be more tolerable. Out of which words I note, that Saint Austen holdeth in this point of praying for the dead, that which neither is sound, neither yet allowed by the Pa∣pists

themselues; and consequently, that the papists ought not to make account of his iudgement herein. For, you doe see that he granteth the punishment of the damned,* 1.459 to be mitigated in hell for the prayers of the liuing; which thing no papist will or dare auouch. And the like is to be saide of other of the Fa∣thers, when they folow opinions not grounded vpon the word of God. Saint Austen therefore must be reiected by his owne rule (as I haue prooued in my Motiues) when he dissenteth from Gods word, the true touchstone and triall of all trueth. And saint Austens inconstancie is plainely vttered in an other place,* 1.460 where he hath these wordes: Quod quidem non ideo con∣firmo, quoniam non resis••o. Which verily I do not therefore ap∣proue, because I do not impugne it. Out of which wordes I note, that though saint Austen could not approoue the opinion of the vulgar sort (as which he knew to haue no ground, but a meere naturall affection) yet would hee not condemne it, but leaue it as in suspense.

The foureteenth obiection.

Praier for the dead is proued by the scripture, euen in y^t new testament:* 1.461 for when S. Iohn forbids to pray for them that die without repentance, he doubtles exhorts to pray for them that die penitent.

The answer.

[ 1] I say first, that when cardinall Allen in his notes vpon this place, auoucheth roundly that this text cōuinceth praier for the dead:* 1.462 he may tell that tale to wise men, and repute himselfe a foole for his paines. For first, as S. Austen (vpon whose au∣thoritie he only buildeth) affirmeth that the apostle speaketh of him that dieth impenitent; so doth the same S. Austen auouch, that he doth iniury to a martyr, that praieth for a martyr, which is a receiued axiome with the papists: and consequently, when he inferreth out of S. Austen, that we must pray for them that die penitent; he concludeth against S. Austen, that wee must pray for most constant martyrs, and so commit a manifest iniu∣rie. So then albeit S. Iohn dehorteth from praying for such as die without repentance, yet doth he not exhort vs to pray for those that die penitent: for otherwise doubtles wee must pray [ 2] for martyrs, which no papist wil allow. I say secondly, that S. Iohn exhorteth to pray for penitent sinners here on earth, but

not for the dead. I prooue it, because these are saint Iohns words; (If any shal see his brother sinning a sin not to death) but he that sinneth, is in this life; for wee can not see a man sinning in the next life, where no sinne is committed, and ther∣fore S. Iohn speaketh of prayer only in this life. I say third∣ly, [ 3] that saint Iohus purpose is this, & no other, to exhort vs to repentance for our sins in this life, because after this life, there is neither repentance nor remission of sinnes to be had; neither can any other sense be truely deduced out of S. Iohns words. Yea their owne cardinall Caietane doth so expound this place,* 1.463 to their vtter confusion.

CHAP. VII. Of praying to Saints departed.

COncerning the inuocation of Saints, great abuses and in∣tollerable superstition haue crept into the church, and daze∣led the eies of the vulgar sort: wherein I desire diligent atten∣tion, and indifferent iudgement, vntill the end of my discourse.

The first Conclusion.

Albeit a christian man neuer pray to the saints departed, yet doth he not sinne therein. I prooue it, because euery sinne is a transgression of Gods law or commandement; but God hath made no law, nor giuen any commandement to pray to saints: Ergo not to pray to them is no sin at all. The proposition is a receiued maxime in the Romish church, grounded on these wordes of saint Austen; Peccatum est factum, vel dictum,* 1.464 vel concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam: Sinne is any deed, word, or thought against the eternall law, which is the will of God. Saint Ambrose confirmeth Saint Augustines descrip∣tion in these wordes: Quid est peccatum,* 1.465 nisi praeuaricatio le∣gis diuinae, & caelestium inobedientia praeceptorum? What is sinne but the transgression of Gods lawe, and the disobedi∣ence of his holie precepts? The assumption is secure, vntil the papists can alleadge some precept out of the olde or new testa∣ment for the inuocation of saints, which they will doe ad Ca∣lendas Graecas. But the Papistes thinke they haue a mightie obiection against this Conclusion, taken out of Genesis in these wordes: Et innocetur super eos nomen meum, nomina

quaeque patrum meorum, Abraham & Isaac. And let my name be called vpon them,* 1.466 and the names of my fathers, Abraham, and Isaac.

To which I answere thus; First, this vocation or no∣mination was not any precept from God, but the meere fact of Iacob or Israel: who as hee was holy, so was he a man, and might haue erred herein as man. Secondly, the hebrew text is thus; Let my name be named in them, that is, let them bee called my children by adoption, or let them bee surnamed after me.* 1.467 For it was the custome both of the Hebrewes and of the Greekes, to expresse the surname of euery one by the name of the father; as Aristoteles the sonne of Nicomachus, Zenophon the sonne of Gryllus, Cambyses the sonne of Cyrus. Thirdly, the whole course of holy scripture, doth yeelde this interpretation of Iacobs wordes. In the olde testament it was a great re∣proch for a woman to beare no children, (though nowe with the Papists they be reputed holy, that will rashly vow neuer to marry;) for which respect, the small remnant of men left after the execution of Gods iustice in the destruction of Ierusa∣lem, inforced women contrary to womanly shamefastnesse, to seek vnto men, and to offer themselues to very base conditions, to the end they would be their husbands and so take away their reproch. Which thing the prophet Ieremy vttereth in these wordes; In that day seuen women shall take hold of one man, saying; We will eate our owne bread, and weare our owne garments,* 1.468 onely let vs be called by thy name, and take away our reproch. Thus writeth Gods holy prophet, whose dis∣course with the due circumstances thereof, if the christian Rea∣der wil exactly ponder, he shall behold as clearely as the glitte∣ring beames of the sunne, the most impudent and sophisticall dealing of the papists. For though the words aswell in the la∣tine as in the Hebrew be all one and the very same, yet are the papists ashamed (I am well assured) to inferre or proue inuo∣cation of Saints, by this latter place. That which I say is euident, because these women desired nothing else of the man, but that he would be their husband, and that they might be cal∣led his wiues, and so put away their reproch. This interpre∣tation is plainely touched in the expresse wordes of the text;

when the women desired the man to take their reproch away, by letting his name be called vppon them: for which end they promised not only to eate their owne bread, but also to weare their owne clothes, that so they be no way burdenous to him. And yet as our Iesuite Bellarmine and other papists woulde haue it vnderstood in Genesis, the text must yeeld this sense: Wee will eate our owne bread, and weare our own garments, and desire onely that wee may inuocate thy name, and make our prayers to thee when thou art dead. Which sense is most absurd, as euerie childe may perceiue: for first if this had beene the meaning of the women, in vaine had they made men∣tion of eating their owne bread, and wearing their owne garments, as which coulde neither profite nor disprofite the man.

Secondly, these women knew not whether the man should be a saued soule in heauen, or a damned spirit in hel, and therefore would they neuer make such a request to him. Thirdly praying to him being dead, could not take away their reproch on earth. Fourthly, the man might suruiue and liue after them all, and so their desire was in vaine, Fiftly,* 1.469 Saint Hierome expoun∣deth this text, euen as I haue saide: For these are his words; Tantùm ne absque marito esse videantur, & sub••acere illi ma∣ledicto quod scriptum est; maledicta sterilis, quae non facit semen in Israel: Onelie least they seeme to bee without an husband, and to bee subiect vnto the curse which is written; Accursed be the barren, which bringeth not foorth seede in Israel.

In sundry places of the Scripture the selfe same phrase is found, which can not possibly yeelde any other sense: and therefore most impudent are the papists, who blush not to father their praying to Saints, vpon this fact of Iacob. Per∣use the ninth chapter of Daniel, the eighteene and nineteene verses, where it is thus written; Beholde the citie where∣vpon thy name is called: For thy name is called vpon thy ci∣tie, and vpon thy people. That is to say, it is named thy ci∣tie, and they are called thy people. Ponder well these words of Saint Iames the second chapter 7. verse; Doe not they blaspheme the good name, that is inuocated vpon you? that is,

you that of Christ are called Christians. The like phrases are in Ieremie the seuenth,* 1.470 in Esay the 44. chapter, in the booke of kinges, and in other places. But our Iesuite thinketh the wordes aforegoing in Genesis, to prooue his purpose effectu∣ally.* 1.471 For Ioseph praied to the angel, to blesse the sonnes of Io∣seph. But I answere, that that angel whereof Iacob spake, is Christ himselfe. And I prooue it by other places of the same booke, where Iacob calleth God an angell. The angel of God saith Iacob,* 1.472 said to me in a dreame. Yet in y^e verse follow∣ing, the angel calleth himself the God of Bethel. Which God was the angel that deliuered Iacob from all euill. Which God was that Christ,* 1.473 in whom Iacob and his seed are blessed. And so by conferring place with place, it is euident that Iacob praied to God, not to the angel.

* 1.474Our Iesuites vrge yet another Scripture, to prooue inuoca∣tion [ 1] of saintes: Call now, if anie wil answere thee, and turne thee to some of the saintes. I say first, that these be the wordes of Elyphas the Themanite one of Iobes frindes, and therefore [ 2] not a sufficient warrantize, for an article of our faith. I say secondly, that he speaketh not of the saints departed, but of the [ 3] godly then liuing. Whose behauiour he willeth Iob to consider, if any of the godly rage against God as he did. I say thirdly, that our Iesuite confesseth elswhere as I haue prooued, that before Christes ascension, praying to saintes was not vsed.

The second conclusion.

To pray to Saintes departed, is a thing at the least vaine and needles.* 1.475 I prooue it, because God is most able and most willing to helpe vs. Most able, for that hee is omnipotent, the fountaine of all grace, and the giuer of euery good gift. Most willing, in that he hath not onely mercifully inuited vs to call vpon him, but withall faithfully promised to heare and graunt our petitions. If any man lacke wisedome saith S. Iames, let him aske of God,* 1.476 which giueth to all men liberally, and repro∣cheth no man, and it shalbe giuen him. If any man sinne saith S. Iohn, we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the iust, and hee is the reconciliation for our sinnes, euen for the sinnes of the whole world. Call vpon me in the day of trouble

saith God by his prophet, and I will deliuer thee. The scrip∣ture telleth vs in many places that whosoeuer asketh any thing of God, shall receiue, and whosoeuer seeketh shall finde,* 1.477 and to euery one that knocketh, the dore shall be opened. And that whatsoeuer we shall aske in Christes name, we shall attaine the same vndoubtedly.

The 1. obiection.

God will often accept the praiers of others for vs, when hee will not heare our selues.* 1.478 For when his wrath was kindled a∣gainst Eliphaz the Themanite and his two friendes, he would not heare them, but yet accepted Iobs praiers for them.

The answere.

I answere, that God meant not vtterly to reiect Eliphaz & his friends; for if he had so determined, he would neuer haue accepted Iobs praiers for them. But because they had con∣temned Iob, and preferred their owne righteousnesse; God to giue a testimonie of Iobs innocencie, true faith, and patience, and to confound the proud conceites of Eliphas and his fel∣lowes, sent them to Iob,* 1.479 and said that hee woulde accept his praiers for them. Which my exposition is grounded on these words; my wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friendes; for yee haue not spoken of me the thing that is right, like my seruaunt Iob. As if God had saide; yee haue offended much more then my seruaunt Iob, in that yee condemned him by his outward afflictions, and did not comfort and solace him with my mercies. And therefore doe I send you vnto him, that you may know that he hath greater fauour in my sight.* 1.480 Thus God shewed the faith of Abraham, praying for the Sodomites, of Moses for the Israelites, and of Paule for the 276. persons in the ship with him.

The replie.

If it were true, that because God is most willing and most able to helpe vs:* 1.481 therefore it is needles and vaine to inuocate or call vpon saintes departed, by the same reason it is needlesse to inuocate and call vpon the saintes liuing, which yet the scrip∣ture commandeth vs to doe.

The answere.

I say first, that in proper kind of speech, inuocation is a spe∣ciall [ 1] part of diuine worship, comprehending the affection of the minde that appealeth to his grace, help, and aid, whom it doth inuocate: and so it is proper to God alone; yet in a large accep∣tion it may bee giuen to the liuing. I say secondly, that the [ 2] one is vaine and needlesse, not so the other. The reason is this, because we haue commaundement and promise for the one, not so for the other. For that is neuer to be deemed vaine or need∣lesse, which God appointeth to be done.

The replie.

Like as nobles and magistrates bring vs to the presence of an earthly king, euen so doe saintes by their holy praiers, bring vs to the presence and fauour of God the king of heauen.

The answere.

* 1.482Saint Ambrose shall answere, as who precisely and fully resolueth this question. These are his wordes; Ideo ad regem pertribunos aut comites itur, quia homo vti{que} est rex, & nescit quibus debeat remp credere: ad dominū autem (quem vti{que} nihil latet, omnium enim merita nouit) promerendum suffragatore non opus est, sed mente deuota. Vbicun{que} enim talis locutus fuerit ei, respondebit illi. We are therefore brought to the presence of kinges by Lords and officers, because the king is a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit his realme. But to win Gods fauour, (from whō nothing is hid, for he knoweth what euery man is meet to haue) we need no spokesman, but a deuout minde. For wheresoeuer such a one speaketh to God, God will answere him. And this answere of S. Ambrose, is conso∣nant to the holy scripture.* 1.483 For Christ himselfe saith; Come vn∣to me all ye that are weary and laden, and I will ease you. A∣gaine, we must not iudge what is the wil of God, by the simili∣tudes of earthly thinges departed through sinne, but by his sa∣cred word reuealed from heauen.

The 2. obiection.

* 1.484God saith by his prophet, that though Moses and Samuel

stood before him, and praied for the people, yet woulde not hee heare them. Whereupon we may gather, that saintes vse to pray for vs, and that God heareth their praiers; though neither at all times, nor for all persons.

The answere.

I say first, that conditionall propositions proue nothing, but [ 1] when the condition is put.

I say secondly, that by popish doctrine Moses and Samuel [ 2] did not then stand before God,* 1.485 and consequently they did not then pray for the people. For (as the papists hold) they were in Limbo vntill Christes ascension.

I say thirdly, that the meaning of the text is no other then [ 3] this; to wit, that if there were any man liuing so zealous as Moses and Samuel, who shuld pray for that people; yet would not God graunt his request. This interpretation is most cer∣taine, as may most euidently be gathered out of these wordes of Ezechiel. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel,* 1.486 and Iob were among them, they should deliuer but their owne soules by their righteousnesse. As if he had said thus; though most godly men Noah, Iob, and Daniel, were now liuing togither, and shoulde pray for this wicked people, yet woulde not I heare them. By which wordes it is manifest, that God both before in Ieremie and now in Ezechiel, speaketh of the praiers of the li∣uing for Daniel was now with Ezechiel aliue in captiuity, and yet doth the scripture speake of them all indifferently.

The third conclusion.

To pray to be holpen for the merites of Saints departed,* 1.487 is very superstitious and plaine diabolicall. I prooue it, because Christ is the lambe, that taketh away the sins of the world; be∣cause Christ is our aduocate, & the reconciliation for our sins; because Christ & only Christ,* 1.488 is the mediatour between God & vs: Because Christ is our high priest, & the author of our salua∣tiō; because Christ hath offered himself a sacrifice for our sins, & hath therewith sanctified vs for euer: because Christ and onely Christ is hee, in whose name wee must be saued: Because Christ is hee, in whose name we shall receiue whatsoeuer wee

aske: Because Christ is he, through whose merites wee haue peace in God: Because Christ is he that suffered for vs, that we might be the righteousnesse of God in him: Finally, because the spirite of God enforceth the papistes themselues, to con∣clude their publique praiers in this maner; per dominum no∣strum Iesum Christum, through the merites of our Lord Iesus Christ.

The obiection.

The fathers of the olde testament, did often alledge and op∣pose against Gods wrath,* 1.489 the names and merites of the holie patriarches. Remember thy seruantes Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. For thy seruaunt Dauids sake, refuse not the face of thine annointed. Why may not wee therefore stand vpon the merites of Christes deere mother, and of others his holy saintes?

The answere.

I answere, that these and like inuocations very frequent in the scriptures, do not depend vpon the merites of Gods saints, but vpon his couenant and promise made to them and their po∣steritie.* 1.490 So saith holy Moses; Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob thy seruantes, to whom thou swarest by thine own selfe, and saidst vnto them, I will multiply your seed: in which wordes he opposeth not their merites, but Gods othe and pro∣mise. So saith Salomon; O Lord God of Israel, thou hast kept with thy seruaunt Dauid my father,* 1.491 that thou hast promi∣sed to him: for thou spakest with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand. In which wordes holy Salomon vrgeth Gods promise, not the merites of his father Dauid. So saith God himselfe to Isaac; dwell in this land, and I will be with thee,* 1.492 and will blesse thee; and I will performe the othe, which I sware to Abraham thy father. Loe, hee remembreth and re∣specteth his owne othe, but not Abrahams merites. No, no, for as I haue prooued alreadie copiously; the most holy saintes in heauen, are rewarded farre aboue their deserts and merites. It is I say, not for the merites of the godly, but for Gods holy couenant made with them, that God dealeth mercifully with

their posterity. For thus is it written in Gods own book; how∣beit the Lord will not destroie the house of Dauid, because of the couenant that he made with Dauid,* 1.493 & because he had pro∣mised to giue a light to him, and to his sonnes for euer.

The fourth conclusion.

The honor due to saints in heauen, and which they require, is not religious inuocation or adoration, but holy imitation here on earth. I proue it, because God will not giue his honor to any other. I am the Lord saith he, this is my name, and my glorie will I not giue to another.* 1.494 And that inuocation is the peculiar worship and honour due to God, S. Paul declareth e∣uidently in these words,* 1.495 for whosoeuer shall cal vpon the name of the Lord, shall bee saued: but howe shall they call on him in whome they haue not beleeued? Austen prooueth this conclu∣sion effectually in sundrie places of his works; Non sit nobis religio inquit, cultus hominum mortuorum: Infra; honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem.* 1.496 Let not saith S. Austen, the worship of dead men be our reli∣gion: they are to be worshipped for imitation, but not to bee adored for religion. Againe in another place, Nos autem mar∣tyribus nostris non templa sicut Diis sed memorias sicut homini∣bus mortuis, quorū apud deum viuunt spiritus, fabricamus,* 1.497 nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus martyribus, sed vni Deo, & martyrum & nostro sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in eius confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur; non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat, inuocantur. We build not churches to our Mar∣tirs as to gods, but we make memories as to dead men, whose soules liue with God, neither doe we reare vp altars there, in which we may offer sacrifice (of laud) to the martyres, but we offer sacrifice (of thanksgiuing) to one God, the God of mar∣tyres and ours, at which sacrifice they are named in their place and order, as the men of God that haue ouercome the world in their confession, neuerthelesse they are not inuocated or prayed vnto, by the priest that offereth the sacrifice.* 1.498 Of honour and re∣uerence due to Saints, Eusebius Caesariensis maketh sufficient relation in these words, Ne{que} Christū aliquando possumus dere∣linquere, qui mortem pro totius mundi salute sustinuit ne{que} ali∣um

quenquam colere, quoniam verum Deum, & qui solus co∣lendus sit nouerimus, martyres vero tanquam discipulos domini d••ligamus & veneremur, quasi integrè fidem magistro seruan∣tes & domino, quorum nos quo{que} in fide & perseuerantia chari∣tatis optamus esse participes. We can neither forsake Christ at any time, who suffred death for y^e saluatiō of the whole world, neither can we worship any other but him, because wee knowe him to be the tru God, & him that only is to be worshipped; yet let vs loue and honor martires, as the disciples of our Lord, as those that keep their faith vndefiled to their master & lord, with whom also our selues desire to be partakers in faith and perse∣uerance of charitie. What need more? Christ himselfe saith; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,* 1.499 & him onely shalt thou serue. And saint Iohn was forbidden to worship the angell.

The first obiection.

God honoureth his saints, and reputeth them for his deare friends:* 1.500 Ergo, it is our duetie also to honour them.

The answer.

We honour them with that honor which God hath appoin∣ted: we acknowledge their faith, their humilitie, their patience, their constancie, and all their gratious gifts, and wee desire to imitate the same: and this is al the honor that saint Austen wil affoord them, as you haue heard.

The second obiection.

The saints in heauen pray for vs, and therefore it is meete that we inuocate and call vpon them. For the angell saide; O Lord of hostes,* 1.501 how long wilt thou be vnmercifull to Ierusa∣lem, and to the cities of Iudah, with whom thou hast bin dis∣pleased now these threescore and ten yeeres?* 1.502 Baruch witnes∣seth that the dead pray for vs, when he saith; O Lord almigh∣tie, heare now the prayer of the dead Israelites, and of their children, which haue sinned before thee. Iudas Machabeus had a vision,* 1.503 in which he saw Onias holding vp his handes to∣ward heauen, and praying for the whole people of the Iewes. And saint Iohn saw 24. Elders fall downe before the lambe,* 1.504 hauing euery one of them harpes and golden vialles full of o∣dours which are the prayers of saints.

The answere.

I say first, that although we grant both angels and saints in [ 1] heauen to pray for the liuing on earth, (as they doe indeede in some cases for some respects,) yet doth it not follow that wee must inuocate and pray to them, as shortly shall bee proued. I say secondly, that there is not the same reason in the saints and [ 2] angels; for the charge and defence of the church in this life, is committed vnto the angels. Besides this, the angell in Zacha∣rie praieth onely for the particular calamities of Iuda, which were apparant aswell to men as to angels. I say thirdly, that [ 3] Baruch speaketh of the prayers of the Israelites that were yet liuing, but as dead for their manifold sins I say fourthly, that the booke of Machabees is not canonical, as I haue proued in my Motiues at large. I adde, that albeit On••as prayed for the [ 4] liuing, yet must not the liuing inuocate or call vpon him, as is alreadie said. I say fiftly, that the 24. Elders wherof S. Iohn [ 5] speaketh, do represent the church militant heere on earth, and consequently, the prayers there mentioned, are of the liuing on earth, not of the Saints raigning in heauen: which interpre∣tation must needes be sound and authenticall, because the holy ghost doth confirme the same in the tenth verse following.* 1.505 For among other thanks to God, one is this, that he hath made the elders to raigne on earth. S. Irenaeus agreeth hereunto, neither is any ancient approued writer of the contrarie opinion.

The third obiection.

Yee bewray your ignorance not knowing the difference be∣twene Latria and Dulia, and so wrest the scriptures against the lawful worshipping of saints;* 1.506 for the worship prohibited in the gospel and in the Reuelation, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that worship which is proper to God alone.

The answere.

I say first, that though Saint Augustine made difference be∣tweene [ 1] Latria and Dulia in ecclesiasticall signification;* 1.507 (which was the cause of great superstition afterwarde in the Romish church) yet did hee ascribe and giue all religious worship to God alone, & no other then ciuil worship to any creature what∣soeuer. Which thing I haue proued out of Saint Austen al∣ready, and shall more at large hereafter.

[ 2] I say secondly, that though saint Austen say that Latria is al∣way or almost alway taken in the scripture for diuine worship;* 1.508 yet doeth Lodouicus Viues a learned papist oppose himselfe a∣gainst saint Austen therein, alledging sundry texts of the olde testament for his probation. Yet the same Viues addeth, that he is cōtent with the distinctiōs inuented by the popish schoole men, so they will likewise allow him and others to vse wordes in their proper and natiue significations.* 1.509 But heere I can not omit the taunt which hee by the way giueth to his scholasticall masters: these are his wordes; Obiter tamen admonebo eos duliam & latriam penultimam habere longam, ne breuem faci∣ant, sed has leges ipsi contēnere se dicunt, quia nesciunt. Yet must I (saith he) admonish them by the way, that Latria and Du∣lia haue the last syllable saue one long, lest they make it short. But they say they care not for these rules, because they know not what they meane. Which checke doubtlesse were a bloodie [ 3] word, if any but a papist had giuen the same. I say thirdly; that Ʋalla, Suidas, and Zenophon, all three very skilfull in the greeke tongue, affirme Latria and Dulia to haue one and the selfe same signification, and that Latria is taken for that com∣mon seruice which one creature doth to another. Thus writeth Zenophon;* 1.510 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But I (O Cyrus) would redeeme euen with my life, that she should not serue. Suidas also affirmes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that Latria is seruice for hire. I say fourthly, that if this di∣stinction [ 4] could serue the papists to prooue their superstitious worship,* 1.511 it might also haue serued the deuill against Christ, and so Christs reason had bin of no force: for the deuill might haue said to Christ; albeit it be true as thou saiest, that Latria is onely to be giuen to God; yet mayest thou giue me Dulia, [ 5] and not offend his law. I say fiftly, that the worship which S. Iohn was prohibited to do in the Reuelation,* 1.512 was not Latria, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for these are the words of the angel; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, adore thou God: as if he had said; religious worship can be giuen to none, but to the euerliuing God alone. I say sixt∣ly,* 1.513 [ 6] that the hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vsed in the old testament (from whence this scripture is alledged by Christ) signifieth seruice or seruitude in common, without the difference of God or crea∣tures.

I say seauenthly, that as Latria is giuen to creatures; so is Dulia applied to God, and that is verie frequent, not one∣ly [ 7] in prophane writers, but euen in the new testament: for S. Luke saith, ye cannot serue God and riches or mammon;* 1.514 where the greek word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Paul writing to the Rom. saith, for they that are such serue not y^e Lord Iesus Christ, but their owne bellies. In which place, the Greeke word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the same apostle writing to the Thessalonians saith; howe they turned to God from idols, to serue the liuing & true God;* 1.515 in which place the greeke is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and Paul, though in many places he call himself the seruant of God, yet vseth he euer the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now then, since Latria and Dulia be in greek as ensis and gladius in latin, and since aswell y^e one as the other, is applied indifferently to God & his crea∣tures, the gentle reader may clearely behold, how vaine and ridiculous is popish dealing in this behalfe.

The first replie

Yee protestants abuse the angels prohibition, when he had S. Iohn to adore God: for the angel neuer meant to denie re∣ligious worship to be due to angels; but to signifie that Saint Iohn did mistake him, and that hee was not God; and conse∣quently, that he was not worthie of that diuine honour, which Iohn thinking him to be God, did then giue vnto him.

The answere.

I say first, that if any religious worship had bin due to anie [ 1] creature, the angel would not haue saide absolutely and simply, adore or worship God, but thus; Worship not me, but God, with this kind of worship. I say secondly, that S. Iohn knew [ 2] wel inough that this angell was not God. For first, he knewe that this angell was one of the seauen angels that shewed him these things, as appeareth by the 17 chap. Secondly, he willed S. Iohn immediatly before to write thus;* 1.516 Blessed are they that are called to the supper of the Lamb: whō S. Iohn knew right wel to be Christ by the vision which himselfe reported in the fift chap. Thirdly, this was not him that said in the 1. chapter,* 1.517 I am alpha & omega; for it was Christ himself,* 1.518 that then appea∣red to S. Iohn. I say thirdly, that this angell professed him∣selfe in expresse tearmes, not to bee God, but the messenger of

God; for he said vnto S. Iohn, these words of God are true, & not these words of mine are true, and yet S. Iohn forthwith a∣dored him, and the angel forthwith controled him for the same.

The second replie.

S. Iohn being an holy and worthie apostle, endued largely with the spirit of god, could not be ignorant what worship was vnlawful and to be reprehended, and so hee erred materially in knowledge of the person, not formally in the kind of adoration.

The answere.

I answere, that if any religious worship could haue bin giuen to any creature, the angel should haue induced S. Iohn into an error, bidding him worship God, and yeelding the reason why he should not worship him; to wit, because hee was a seruant, not the Lord; a creature, not God: as if hee had taught, that all religious worshippe ought to be giuen to God alone. S. Iohn therefore stricken into an extasie of minde through the maiestie of the angel that told these things, fell sodainely downe before his feete to adore him,* 1.519 which yet he did not of ignorance for the resons aleaged,* 1.520 but of forgetfulnes, as the iteration of the wor∣ship declared. For though he was forbidden before to adore any beside god, yet did he y^e second time adore the angel, forgetting himselfe sodainely, and what the angel had said vnto him. Au∣sten maketh so plaine a recitall of this adoration,* 1.521 as more nee∣deth not to a reasonable mind. These are his words; Quare honoramus eos charitate, non seruitute, nec eis tēpla construimus, nolū•• enim se sic honorari à nobis, quia nosipsos cum boni sumus, templa summi Dei esse nouerunt: recte itaque scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se adoraret, sed vnum Deum, sub quo ei esset & ille cōseruus; qui autem nos inuitant vt sibi seruiamus, & tanquam deos colamus, similes sunt superbis hominibus▪ qui∣bus si liceat, similiter coli volunt Sed istos homines perpeti mi∣nus, illos vero colere magis periculosū est. Infra, religet ergo nos religio vni omnipotenti Deo, quia inter mentem nostrā qua illū intelligimus patrem, & veritatem, id est, lucem in••eriorem, per quam illum intelligimus nulla interposita creatura est. We ho∣nor angels with charitie, not with seruice, neither do we build temples vnto them; for they will not be so honoured of vs, be∣cause they know that we our selues, when we are good, are the

temples of the higest God: rightly therfore is it written, that a man was forbidden by the angell, that hee should not worship him, but one God onely, vnder whom he was a fellow seruant with him. But they that inuite vs to serue them, and to worship them as gods, are like to proud men, who if they might, would be likewise worshipped: but to suffer these mē is lesse perilous, and to worship the angell is more daungerous. Let religion therefore bind vs to one God almightie, because betweene our mind by which we vnderstand him to be the father & the truth, that is, the inward light, through which we vnderstand him, no creature is interposed.

The replie.

The angel prophesied, that the Iewes shuld fal down before the bishop of Philadelphia, & adore him.* 1.522 Iacob adored the top of his rod. Abraham adored the angels that appeared to him: Balaam adored the angel that stood before him with a drawen sword: Iosue adored the angel falling flat downe before his feete, and calling him Lord, and the angel refused not that wor∣ship, but required yet more of him: Nabuchodonosor adored Daniel, and did great offices of religion, which the prophet r••∣sed not. Achior the Ammonite fel at Iudeths feet,* 1.523 & reuerenced her: the Sunamite whose child Elizeus raised to life, fel down before his feet & adored him, & he reproued hir not:* 1.524 the prophets at Iericho,* 1.525 perceiuing the double grace of Elias to be in Elize∣us, fel down before him and adored him, which hee reiected not.

The answere.

I answer to al these in general, that for the greater part they speake of ciuil worship, which I grant may be done to angels, prophets, magistrats & holy men. To y^e seueral obiectiōs, thus in particular. I say first, that y^e Iews gaue such ciuil reuerence [ 1] as was due to a godly pastour or Bishop,* 1.526 but yeelded no reli∣gious worship vnto him. I say secondly, that your popish vul∣gar latin translation, is false & idolatricall, albeit your late dis∣holy [ 2] synode of Trent anathematized al that wil not reuerence the same. For you reade thus; Iacob adored the top of his rod;* 1.527 which if Iacob had done indeed, as your guilefull edition saith, he shuld haue cōmitted flat idolatry, because as I haue proued out of your owne Pope Gregory,* 1.528 it is not lawfull to worship

images, much lesse a naked piece of wood religiously. But the text indeed is thus, as your own deare doctor Arias Montanus granteth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He adored on the top of his rod or staffe: which is nothing else, but staying himselfe vpon his staffe adored God. So doth Saint Augustine ex∣pounde it,* 1.529 whose expresse words are these; Nam facile intelli∣geretur senem, qui virgam fereba•• eo more quo illa aetas ba∣culum solet, vt se inclinauit ad Deum adorandum, id vtique fecerit super cacumen virgae suae, quam sic ferebat, vt super eam caput inclinando adoraret Deum. For we might easi••y vnder∣stand that the olde man,* 1.530 who carried a rodde in such manner as that age vsed to beare a staffe, as he bowed himselfe to wor∣ship God, he did it on the end of his staffe, which he carrie•• so, as he might adore God by bowing his head vpon it. In which words S. Austen sheweth plainely, that Iacob when he wor∣shipped god, leaned on his staffe by reason of his age & weake∣nesse. Behold here gentle reader, how our late papists do wrest the holy scriptures, to build thereupon their superstitious and idololatricall adoration of stocks & stones. I say thirdly, that it [ 3] was Christ himselfe that appeared to Iosue in the likenes of a man, & therfore he both rightly required worship, and Iosue of duetie adored him religiously. This is euident in the verie be∣ginning of the next chap. with the last end of the former.* 1.531 I say fourthly, that albeit the worship which Nabuchadonosor yeel∣ded [ 4] seemed to deserue cōmendation, yet was it indeed very re∣prehensible,* 1.532 because he ioyned Gods honor with the Prophets. And if Daniel did not admonish him of his fault, (as it is verie probable hee did) he sinned grieuously. That which Abraham, Achior, the Sunamite, & the rest did, was meere ciuil adoratiō.

The replie.

* 1.533It is lawfull to adore holy things, as the temple, the arke, the bread of proposition, and the like: for the Psalmograph saith, adore ye his footestoole, because it is holy.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that it is not lawful to adore religiously any saint in heauen, no not the blessed virgin Marie the mother of God & man; much lesse is it lawefull to adore stockes and stones, and other like sensles creatures, as the papists would guileful∣ly,

enforce vs to do. Neither doe I barely say this of mine own head, but with the vniforme consent of the holy fathers. Thus writeth S. Epiphanius, Sed neque Helias adorandus est,* 1.534 etiam∣si in viuis sit, neque Ioannes adorandus, quanquam per pro∣prias preces suas dormitionem suam admirandam effecerit, imò potius ex deo gratiam acceperit: sed neque Thecla, ne{que} quisquā sanctus adoratur. Non enim dominabitur nobis antiquus error, vt relinquamus viuentem, & adoremus ••a quae ab ipso facta sunt. Infra, sit in honore Maria••pater, & filius, & spiritus san∣ctus adoretur. Mariam nemo adoret, non dico mulierem, imò ne{que} virum. Deo debetur hoc mysterium, ne{que} angeli capiunt talē glo∣rificationem: deleantur quae male scripta sunt in corde deceptorū: tollatur ex oculis cupiditasligni: conuertatur rursus figmentum ad dominum: reuereatur Eua cum Adam, vt deum colat solum, ne ducatur serpentis voce, sed permaneat in dei praecepto; ne comedes de ligno: & erat lignum non error, sed per ipsum lignum facta est inobedientia erroris: ne comedat quis de errore, qui est prop∣ter S. Mariam: nam etsi pulchrum est lignum, sed tamen non ad cibū: & si pulcherrima est Maria, & sancta, & honorata, at nō ad adorationem. Neither is Elias to be adored, though he be among the liuing: neither S. Iohn must be adored, though by his praiers his death was wonderful;* 1.535 yea hee rather receiued grace from God: but neither Thecla, neither any saint is to be adored. For the olde error may not ouerrule vs, that we forsake the liuing god and adore the works of his hands. Let Mary be in honor; let the father, & the son, & the holy ghost be adored; let no man adore Marie, I do not say the woman, but neither the mā. This mistery is due to god, neither are the angels capable of such glory: let such errors be blotted out, as are wickedly en∣grauen in the harts of deceiued soules; let the concupiscence of the wood be taken out of our sight; let the worke return again to the workeman; let Eue haue reuerence with Adam; let her worship onely God; let her not be seduced with the voice of the serpent, but let her abide in Gods commandement; thou shalt not eate of the wood: and it was wood indeede, not errour, but by the wood came disobedience of errour: let none eate of that error, which is for holy Mary. For though the wood be faire, yet is it not for meate: although Marie be most beautiful

and holy, and honoured, yet not for adoration. Out of these gol∣den words I note first,* 1.536 that in the time of S. Epiphanius, (who liued more then 370. yeres after Christ,) it was reputed great superstition and flat paganisme to adore any Saint or angel in [ 1] heauen; much more to adore men yet liuing on earth; and most of all to adore woode, stones, and sencelesse things. I note se∣condly, [ 2] that religious honour or worship is due to God alone; and that neither saintes nor images, nor the mother of God, is capable thereof. I note thirdly, that to thinke that Saintes or [ 3] Angels may be adored, is an old damnable error, receiued from the gentiles, wherewith some of the vulgar and common peo∣ple were deceiued, euen in the daies of Epiphanius. I note fourthly, that by the iudgement of this holy, learned, and anci∣ent [ 4] father, to teach vs to adore saints religiously (for ciuilly I graunt it may be done,) is to induce vs to erre with Eue.

S. Ambrose is consonant to Epiphanius, as who hath these expresse wordes;* 1.537 Age, numquid tam demens est aliquis, aut sa∣lutis suae immemor, vt honorificentiam regis vindicet comiti, cum de hac re si qui etiam tractare fuerint inuenti, iure vt rei dam∣nentur maiestatis? & isti se non putant reos, qui honorem nomi∣nis Dei deferunt creaturae, & relicto domino conseruos adorant, quasi sit aliquid plus quod reseruetur Deo. Go to, is any man so mad, or so carelesse of his life, that he will giue to a Lord, the honour of the king or soueraigne? when such as are knowne to deale in such a matter, are iustly condemned of treason? and yet these men doe not thinke themselues guiltie, who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature, and leauing God adore their felow-seruants, as though there were any thing els reser∣ued for God. Out of these words I note first, that S. Ambrose, [ 1] after hee had sharpely reprooued such as worshipped images, affirmeth them to forsake God, that adore his saintes their fel∣low-seruantes. [ 2] I note secondly, that such as adore Gods crea∣tures, be no lesse guiltie of treason against God, then they that rebel against their earthly prince. I note thirdly, that religious [ 3] worship, is so proper to God, as if it be giuen to his creatures, nothing is reserued for himself. S. Augustine agreeth iumpe with S. Epiphanius and S. Ambrose,* 1.538 and vttereth his minde plainly in these wordes; Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum

mortuorum; quia si pie vixerunt, non sic habentur vt tales quae∣rant honores, sed illum à nobis coli volunt, quo illuminante lae∣tantur meriti sui nos esse consortes. Let not the worship of dead men be our religion: for if they liued well, they are not of that account that they seek such honour, but they would haue vs to worship him, by whose inlightning they reioice that we be their fellow-seruants in well doing.* 1.539 The good Iew Mardocheus would not adore Haman the kings lieutenant, and that not of pride, malice, or presumption; but lest he should giue that to man which was due to God alone. I say secondly, that there is [ 2] great disparitie betweene the adoring of a footestoole, and ado∣ring before a footestoole: for your owne pope Gregorie the great, sharply reproued, and bitterly condemned the worship∣ping of Images, and for all that allowed prayer and worship done before the same.

I say thirdly, that the place truely translated is thus; [ 3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Hebrew; Bow downe your selues at the footstoole of his feet,* 1.540 he is holie: so that the sence is not to adore the temple, (which is meant by the word Footestoole) but to adore and worshippe God in his temple at Ierusalem, the place which God had ap∣pointed for his worship: and therefore it is not said, It is holy, but, He is holy. Yea, so is it also in the greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be∣cause he is holy. I say fourthly, that Saint Augustine and [ 4] Saint Hierome doe expound this text of Christs sacred huma∣nitie, which is as the footestoole of his diuinitie. These are Saint Hieromes expresse wordes▪* 1.541 Multae sunt de scabello opi∣niones, sed hic propheta corpus dominicum dicit, in quo maiestas diuinitatis tanquam super scabellum stat. There are many opi∣nions of the footestoole, but the prophet heere vnderstandeth Christs body or humanitie, in which his diuinitie standeth as vpon a stoole. Yea, S. Austen was so far from the opinion of our late Papists and Iesuites, that hee was troubled howe to vnderstand this text; and that for this respect onely, because it seemed to command him to adore some creature, which he durst not doe: these are his owne words;* 1.542 Terra scabellum pedum meo∣rum; anceps factus sum, timeo adorareterram, ne damnet me qui fecit coelum & terram••rursum timeo non adorare scabellum

pedum Domini mei, quia Psalmus mihi dicit, adorate scabellum pedum eius. The earth is my footestoole. I am doubtful what to doe, I feare to adore the earth, least hee condemne me that made both heauen and earth. On the other side, I feare not to adore his footestoole,* 1.543 because the Psalme saith, adore yee his footstoole. Loe, S. Austen found in the prophet Esay, that the earth was Gods footstoole, and hee knew well that it was not lawfull to adore creatures, and consequently neither the earth, (least he should be damned in so doing, as himselfe here saith;) and therefore was hee sore troubled, what to vnderstand by the word (footstoole) in the Psalme. But if he had been a Romish Iesuite, hee woulde neuer haue stumbled at any such thing. Whether therefore we interprete the word (footestoole) by the literall Hebrew phrase, or with S. Austen and S. Hierome; it will not follow thereupon, that any pure creature may be ado∣red. I say (anie pure creature) because Christes body or hu∣manitie is a creature, but not a pure creature. For the vnspea∣kable hypostaticall vnion, maketh it to subsist in the person of God; by which Christ is aswel God as man.

The fift conclusion.

The inuocation this day common in the Romish Church, is the selfe same which the Gentiles in old time did vse,* 1.544 when they did inuocate their false Gods. I prooue it, because they haue peculiar saintes for their seuerall necessities; to wit, S. Loy, for their horses. S. Anthonie for their pigges, S. Roch for the pestilence, S. Stephen for the night, S. Iohn for the day, S. Nicholas for their studies, S. George for their warres, S. Cosma and Damiais for their sores, S. Apolonia for their teeth, S. Agnes for their virginity, and others innumerable for the like end. They erect churches to their saintes, they frame images to them, they carrie their images about in procession, they cōsecrate altars to them, they dedicate holy daies to them, they make vowes in their honour,* 1.545 they offer presentes to their altars and images, they bestowe more y^t way in one houre, then on poore folkes in a whole yeare; they place lampes, tapers, torches, and lightes before their images, and thinke them the

most happie, that so bestow the most. They kneele downe be∣fore their images, they touch them, they embrace them, they kisse them, they speake vnto them, they intreate them as if they were yet liuing. Yea, they seeme to passe the folly and im∣pietie of the Gentiles: They ascribe their saluation to their saintes, and to such saintes, as of whose sainthood wee may well stand in doubt. They inuocate Campion, Sherwin, Bal∣lard, Hart, Nelson, and the rest of that seditious faction. Al∣phonsus the Iesuite, and late rector of the Englishe Colledge in Rome, caused the organes to be sounded, and all the Stu∣dents to come to the Chappel, and himself hauing on his backe the white Surplesse and the stole about his necke; sang a col∣lect of martyrs; so after his maner, canonising a rebellious subiect for a saint. Such is the seditious impudencie, of newly hatched Romish Iesuites. And least any other Iesuite or pa∣pist shall denie, that they ascribe their saluation to saintes (for they vse to say,* 1.546 that they make them but mediatours of inter∣cession, and not of saluation and redemption,) I will prooue it flatly out of their owne bookes, and church seruice, which I wish the reader to marke attentiuely.

In the praier which the church of Rome readeth publickly, vpon Thomas Beckets day, sometime the Bishop of Cantur∣burie, I finde these wordes; Deus, pro cuius ecclesia gloriosus pōtifex Thomas gladiis impiorum occubuit, praesia quaesumus,* 1.547 vt omnes qui eius implorant auxilium, petitionis suae salutarem consequantur effectum. O God, for whose church the glorious bishop Thomas was put to death, by the swordes of the wic∣ked; graunt wee beseech thee, that all which desire his helpe, may attaine the effect of their petition to saluation. Out of these wordes, I note first, that Thomas Becket is pronounced a glorious martyr, albeit the disobedience of his lawfull prince, [ 1] was the cause of his death.

I note secondly, that the Romish church seeketh for saluati∣on, [ 2] euen through his merites.

I note thirdly, that the papistes make him a Sauiour, yea such a Sauiour as is equall with Christ; and consequently, that [ 3] they make him another Christ. For as S. Paule truely recor∣deth, Christ redeemed the church with his owne bloud. And

yet doth the Romish church teache, (as yee see) that Thomas Becket shed his bloud for the church of God. Since therefore the proper and onely badge of Christes mediatorship, is giuen to Thomas Becket; what remaineth for him to be, if not ano∣ther Christ? And least we should not fully vnderstand how our redemption is wrought in the bloud of Thomas, they deliuer this mysterie more cleerely in another place, in these wordes; Tuper Tho. sanguinē quē pro te impendit▪* 1.548 fac nos Christe scan∣dere quò Thomas ascendit. Thou O Christ cause vs to come thither where Thomas is, euen by the bloud which hee shedde for thy sake. Loe Thomas Becket died for vs, and shed his bloud to bring vs to heauē, as the papists teach vs; therfore by their doctrine hee is our redeemer, and mediatour, not on∣ly of intercession, but also of redemption.

In their praier bookes, deliuered to the vulgar people (which God wote they vnderstoode not,* 1.549) they teache the peo∣ple thus to inuocate their proper Aungels; Angele Dei quicustos es mei pietate superna, me tibi commissum salua, defende, guberna. O Aungell of God, who art my keeper by supernall pietie, defend mee, gouerne mee, and saue my soule.

* 1.550To S. Paule they teache vs to pray in this maner, O beate Paule apostole, te deprecor vt ab angelo Sathanae me eripias, & à ventura ira liberes, & in coelum introducas. O blessed A∣postle Paul, I pray thee that thou wilt take me from the angel of Satan, and deliuer me from wrathe to come, and bring me into heauen.

* 1.551To Saint Iames in this maner; O foelix Apostole mag∣ne martyr Iacobe, te colentes adiuua, peregrinos vndi{que} tuos cle∣mens protege, ducens ad coelestia. O happy Apostle and migh∣tie martyr Iames, helpe thy worshippers, defend courte∣ously thy pilgrimes on euery side, and bring them to heauen∣ly ioyes.

* 1.552To Saint Martin thus; Caecis das viam, mutisque lo∣quelam; tu nos adiuua, mundans immunda; qui fugas daem••∣nia, nos hic libera. O Martin, thou causest the blinde to see, and the dumbe to speake; Helpe vs and purge the vncleane; thou that castest out diuels, deliuer vs here. But for breuitis

sake, I wil wittingly and willingly superseade many particu∣lar praiers made to meaner saintes, and come to the blessed Virgine.

The Papistes teache vs to inuocate the holy virgine Mary thus; O Maria gloriosa, in delitiis delitiosa,* 1.553 praepara nobis gloriam. O Mary glorious, in dainties delicious, prepare thou glory for vs.

Againe in another place thus;* 1.554 Maria mater Domini aeterni patris filij, fer opem nobis omnibus ad teconfugientibus. O Mary, the mother of our Lord the sonne of the eternall God, helpe vs all that flie for helpe vnto thee.

Againe, in another place thus; Maria mater gratiae,* 1.555 ma∣ter misericordiae, tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe. O Mary the mother of grace, the mother of mercie, defend thou vs from our (ghostly) enemie, and receiue vs at the houre of death.

Againe, in another place thus; Solue vincla reis,* 1.556 profer lumen caecis, mala nostra pelle, bona cunctae posce. Monstra te esse matrem, sumat per te preces qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus. Loose the bandes of the guiltie, bring light to the blinde, driue away our euils, require all good thinges for vs: shew thy selfe to be a mother, let him receiue thy praiers that was borne for vs and suffered to be thine.

Againe in another place thus; Veni regina gentium,* 1.557 dele flammas reatuum, dele quod cunque deuium, da vitam innocen∣tium. Come O Queene of the Gentiles, extinguishe the firie heate of our sinnes, blot out whatsoeuer is amisse, and cause vs to leade an innocent life.

Againe, in their olde Latine primers,* 1.558 the people are thus taught to pray; In extremis diebus meis esto mihi auxi∣liatrix & saluatrix, & animam meam, & animam patris mei, & matris meae, fratrum, sororum, parentum, amico∣rum, benefactorum meorum, & omnium fidelium defun∣ctorum ac viuorum ab aeterna mortis caligine libera; ip∣so auxiliante quem portasti Domino nostro Iesu Christo fi∣lio tuo. O glorious Virgine Mary, bee thou my helper and Sauiour in my last dayes, and deliuer from the mist

of eternall death, both mine owne soule and my fathers soule, and the soules of my mother, brethren, sisters, parents, friends, benefactors, and of all the faithfull liuing and dead; by his help whom thou didst beare, our Lord Iesus Christ thy sonne.

Againe, after two or three leaues in this maner; Vt in tuo sancto tremendo ac terribili iudicio in conspectu, vnigeniti filii tui,* 1.559 cui pater dedit omne iudicium, me liberes & protegas a pae∣nis inferni, & participem me facias coelestium gaudiorum. I beseech thee most mercifull and chaste virgine Mary, that in thine holy, fearefull, and terrible iudgement in the sight of thine only sonne, thou wilt deliuer and defend me from the paines of hell, and make me partaker of heauenly ioyes.

These praiers if they be well marked, will prooue my con∣clusion effectually; as which conteine euery iote, of power, right, maiestie, glorie, and soueraignty whatsoeuer, is, or ought to be yeelded vnto our Lord Iesus Christ. Yea, these two last praiers make the virgine Mary, not onely equall with Christ, [ 1] but farre aboue him. For first, the virgine Mary, is desired to [ 2] defend vs from the tortures of hell. Secondly, to bring vs to the ioyes of heauen. Thirdly, the last iudgement is called her [ 3] iudgement. Fourthly, she is called our sauiour. Fiftly, she is [ 4] requested to saue father, mother, brother, sister, friendes, bene∣factors, [ 5] the quicke and the dead, by the help of Christ her sonne. Now by the first foure, she is made equall with Christ; and by the last, farre aboue him. For she is the sauiour, and hee the in∣tercessor: which I gather out of these wordes, (ipso auxili∣ante, &c. By the helpe of our Lord Iesus Christ.) For by these wordes and the rest afore going, the virgine Mary doth saue vs, & Christ is but the instrument that helpeth her, in the worke of our saluation: which howe intollerable blasphemie it is, let the reader iudge; I haue said.

The sixt conclusion.

To inuocate Saintes as the papistes doe, and to beleeue that they heare their praiers, is to make a pluralitie of Gods. I say (as the papistes doe) because to inuocate saintes at cer∣taine times, in certaine places, and for certaine respectes, doth

not make them gods. I proue this conclusion, because to heare all prayers at all times in all places, for al things; is a thing so proper to God, as it can not possibly agree to anie,* 1.560 but to God alone. For his knowledge is infinite, and so not communicable to any creature; marke well gentle reader, what I say; for this reson is such, as few seem to haue cōceiued y^e same. But certs, no learned papist can indeed denie it to be tru. For which cause their great learned D. Aquinas telles vs two truths, the one,* 1.561 that God can not communicate the power of creation, to any creature liuing, either on earth or in heauen: and he proueth it out of Saint Augustine, who saith that neither the good nor the bad angels can be the creators of any thing. And why so? because that kind of worke requireth power infinite, whereof no creature is or can be capable. The other,* 1.562 that none but God is or can be infinite; and his reason is euident, because to be in∣finite, is against the nature of that which is made.

The first obiection.

The Saints in heauen may heare & vnderstand our praiers on earth, and yet haue limited & not infinit knowledge, ergo the proofe of your conclusion is not good.

The answere.

I say first, that God hath reuealed to his seruants on earth, [ 1] the secret cogitations and externall facts of others farre distant from them.* 1.563 For hee reuealed to Ahias that Ieroboams wife would come disguised to him, and told him what he should say vnto her. He reuealed to Elizeus all the secret dealing of Gie∣zi, which he had with Naaman the Syrian:* 1.564 he disclosed to Pe∣ter the falshoode of Ananias and Saphyra his wife: and so may he at his holy pleasure reueale to his saints in heauen,* 1.565 the prayers that on earth are made in some places at sometimes vnto them. Euerie thing is proportionable, no contradiction is implied therein.

I say secondly, that there be sundrie things which God can∣not [ 2] do, as I haue proued in my booke of Motiues, not for that there is any want in God, but because there is defect in the thing that shoulde bee doone: and so is it in this present case, of popish inuocation.

I say thirdly, that Gods apostles and prophets knewe but some special things, which seemed good in Gods wisedome to be so reuealed. Neither did they know such things by any in∣herent qualitie, but by signification from aboue, and that onely at such time, as the necessitie of the church did require. Which I proue by these words of Elyzeus to Gihezi,* 1.566 Let her alone, for her soule is vexed within her, and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told it me: as if the prophet had said, God re∣uealeth not al things, to his deare and faithfull seruants at all times: but some things at some times, as seemeth best in his [ 4] diuine wisedome. I say fourthly, that popish inuocation requi∣reth infinite knowledge, because they pray for all matters, at al times, in al places; so that y^e saints must perforce be som∣time ignorant what they pray for, vnles their knowledge be in∣finit.

The first replie.

As the saints cannot haue infinite knowledge, because it is not communicable to any creature; so neither can anie liuing of limited power, make any infinite request vnto them.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that there is exceeding great disparitie, betweene the persons that pray, the things praied for, and the saints prai∣ed vnto: for the things prayed for, are without end and mea∣sure. They that pray are innumerable & multiplicable into in∣finit in potentia, and yet must euery saint seuerally for himself, haue the distinct notice of al them that pray, and of all things that are prayed for: for otherwise, many shall pray at manie times, and not be heard, which is the thing that I contend to proue. For example, al papists in al countries pray to the vir∣gin Mary at al times for all things, and so hir knowledge must extend to al persons al places, and al desires at al times, and so be infinite; or certes she must be sometime deceiued, not know∣ing [ 2] what is required of her. I say secondly, that it is proper to God alone, to know our hearts and cogitations; and conse∣quently our prayers.* 1.567 Therefore is it saide in the Acts, thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shewe whether of these two thou hast chosen.* 1.568 God saith S. Peter which knoweth the harts, beare them witnes. Salomon saith, thou only know∣est the hearts of the children of men.* 1.569 He (saith S. Paul) that

searcheth the harts, knoweth what is the meaning of the spirit. Thou O Lord of hosts (saith Ieremy) iudgest righteously,* 1.570 & triest the reines and the hart. And yet must the saints know our hearts and thoughts, if they heare and know our prayers: for doubtlesse the sound of our words, can not reach vp to heauen.

The second replie.

Both Angels & saints are present here on earth and knowe our affaires, and therefore it is a vaine cauill, to say that the sounde of our wordes cannot be heard to heauen.

The answere.

I say first, that neither angels nor saints can be in many pla∣ces at once, but are definitiuely in one onely place at one time. [ 1] And this their owne angelical doctor Aquinas,* 1.571 doth witnesse with me in these words; Nam corpus est in loco circumscriptiuè, quia commensuratur loco: angelus autem non circumscriptiuè, cum non commensuretur loco, sed definitiuè, quia ita est in vno loco▪ quòd nō alio Deus autem neque circumscriptiuè, neque de∣finitiuè, quia est vbi{que}: for a body is in a place circumscriptiue∣ly, because it is measured with the place; but an angel is not in place by circumscription, for that hee is not measured with the place, but definitiuely, because he is so in one place, that he is not in another: yet god is neither circumscriptiuely nor defini∣tiuely in place, because he is euerie where.* 1.572 And Damascenus agreeth with Aquinas, affirming that angels while they are in heauen, are not on earth. I say secondly, that the angels (as S. [ 2] Paul saith) are indeed Gods ministring spirits, sent forth for their sakes which shalbe heires of saluation.* 1.573 And the angels (as Moses saith) went vp and down by Iacobs ladder, which rea∣ched from earth to heauen;* 1.574 & that the angels (as Daniel wri∣teth) are defēders of y^e church vnder Christ;* 1.575 & for that purpose are sent vnto vs. But neuerthelesse, they are but in one onely place at once; & while they see what is done in one place, they are ignorant what befalleth to another; for they passe to & fro, from affaires to affaires, from place to place, from person to person, from heauen to earth, and from earth to heauen again, according to their appointed seruice; so that no one angel doth or can know, the hundreth part of our petitions, much lesse the saints in heauen, who haue no such appointed ministerie.

The third replie.

* 1.576The saints are equall to the angels; and are the sons of god, since they are the children of the resurrection: therfore they are present and see our affaires, euen as doe the angels.

The answere.

I answer, that the time by Christ named is after y^e resurrec∣tion; neither is the equalitie he speaks of, general, but particu∣lar; to wit, in that y^e saints shal haue no more need or vse of ma∣riage, then y^e angels. But that the saints shalbe sent as the an∣gels, for y^e seruice of the church & the ministerie of the faithful, it is nether recorded here, nor in any other place of y^e scripture. For Christ here only answered to the captious Saduces, who denying the resurrection asked whose wife she should be in y^e re∣surrection, that had bin maried to 7. brethren, al dying without issue.

The 4. replie.

* 1.577The angels in heauen reioyce, when sinners repent heere on earth; which they could neuer do, if they did not vnderstand our affaires, our prayers and our penitent hearts.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that Saints in heauen do not know what we doe on earth; for as the Prophet recordeth, Abraham was ignorant what the Israelites did,* 1.578 and Iacob knew them not. I say se∣condly, [ 2] that the text doth not say, that the angels in heauen re∣ioyce, but simplie that the angels reioyce; and so the reioycing which the text speaketh of, may bee vnderstoode to bee done on earth while the angels are present. I say thirdly, that the an∣gels [ 3] which are appointed for our seruice on earth, and thereby know our affaires on earth, may make relation thereof in hea∣uen, and so the whole companie of angels in heauen may re∣ioyce thereat together; or it may please God sometime to re∣ueale the conuersion of some sinner, to the saints or angels in heauen. But hereupon will it neuer be concluded, that either the saints or the angels do knowe the secrets of our hearts, or our petitions vniuersally, as is alreadie said.

The fift replie.

To do myracles is as proper to God, as to know the secrets of our hearts, therefore since God hath communicated the one to his seruants, so may he without contradiction do the other.

The answere.

I say first, that God himselfe did euer worke the myra∣cles, [ 1] and did onely vse the ministerie of his apostles and ser∣uants, in the externall act. I say secondly, that God can & hath [ 2] de facto reuealed the secrets of mens hearts, euen to his holie prophets, yet hee neuer did that generally, but in measure, at certaine times to speciall persons, for the good of his church.

The sixt replie.

Although God cannot giue anie inherent qualities to the saints in heauen, by which they may knowe all the desires and prayers of the liuing heere on earth, because no creature is ca∣pable thereof; yet may God from time to time, reueale all such prayers to his Saints.

The answere.

I say first, that it is not impossible for God so to doe, though God should be so driuen without need to worke innumerable [ 1] miracles, & that almost euery houre. I say secondly, that thogh god shuld bestow such reuelations on his saints, yet would ma∣ny [ 2] absurdities folow therupon. For first, these reuelatiōs must [ 1] follow the prayers, and not goe before them; and so my con∣clusion is still in force. Secondly, thus to require myracles at Gods hands, were to tempt God grieuously. Thirdly, such [ 2] prayers should be a flat mockerie in Gods sight, because God [ 3] must first reueale the prayers to his Saints, then must he giue eare to the saints while they inculcate the same prayers: & last∣ly, he may grant thē if he list. Fourthly, in this maner of pray∣ing [ 4] they leaue God, whom they should inuocate, & they run to thē at whom they should not come. Fiftly, they do al this of in∣fidelitie, because they haue no warrant from God so to make [ 5] their prayers.

The 7. replie.

Yee cannot denie but that the liuing may pray one for ano∣ther, and also desire one an others prayer;* 1.579 therefore since the faithful departed loue vs as much as before, & are as mindful of vs as before, and are as deare in Gods sight as before; we do no more iniurie or dishonour to God in praying now to them, then when they were liuing here among vs.

The answere.

I say first, that we haue cōmandement, promise, & examples [ 1]

to pray one for another while we are yet liuing on earth, but we haue no such thing in the holy scriptures, neither in the olde nor in the new testament, concerning the inuocation of saints departed. I say secondly, that if the saints departed could heare [ 2] and vnderstande our prayers as the liuing do; then might wee without dishonour and iniurie to God, desire them to pray for vs as wee doe the liuing; neuerthelesse such kind of praying should be in vs great temeritie and presumption, because wee haue neither cōmandement nor example in gods word so to do. I say thirdly, that if the liuing should desire the prayers one of [ 3] another, as the p••pists desire the prayers of saints, they shoulde not onely derogate greatly from Christs holy mediatourship, but withal commit flat idolatrie. For the papists desire (as is alreadie proued) to be saued by the merites and blood of saints, for the cōplement wherof, I wil here adde a memorable testi∣monie. The vsual practise of the papists, especially of the Ie∣suites, is to adde in the ende of their absolution these words; Passio D.N.I. Christi, merita B.V. Mariae, & omnium sancto∣rum & quicquid bonifeceris vel mali sustinueris,* 1.580 sit tibi in re∣missionem peccatorū tuorum in augmentum gratiae, & praemium vitae aeternae. The passion of our Lord Iesus Christ, the merits of the blessed virgin Mary, and of al saints, & all the good thou shalt do and punishment thou shalt suffer, be to thee for the re∣mission of thy sins, for increase of grace, & for the reward of e∣ternal life. I say fourthly, that to inuocate saints departed, be∣leeuing [ 4] that they can & do heare our praiers, is to make them gods. And euen so shuld we make the liuing, gods, if we did in that maner cal on thē in their absence. I may therfore wel con∣clude, that though the one kind of praying be godly and imita∣ble; yet is the other damnable and flat idololatricall; for God is zealous,* 1.581 and wil not giue his glorie to another.

The second obiection.

The soule of the rich man in hel, knew where Abraham was, as also the state of Lazarus,* 1.582 and of his brethren then liuing: therfore much more do the saints in heauen, know our state on earth.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that parables and allegories are not sufficient, to establish any new kind of doctrine; for by this parable (as Ire∣naeus

recordeth) Christ meant nothing els, but to declare the co∣gitations, torments, & state of the wicked after this life.* 1.583 Iusti∣nus is of the same opinion, & hereupon flatly denieth purgatory▪ I say secondly, that if this were granted to be a true history, & [ 2] no parable; yet would it not follow therupon, that the saints in heauen knew our thoughts and praiers here on earth; for as S. Austen grauely writeth, though the dead knowe not what is done here on earth, while wee doe it; yet may they afterwarde know what is done, either by the dead that go from hence,* 1.584 or by the angels that are present when the things are done: and this knowledge had Abraham by the relation of the dead, and no o∣therwise, as witnesseth the same S. Austen in the same booke.

The third obiection.

S. Austen, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyprian, and the ancient fa∣thers generally, vsed to inuocate and to pray vnto the saints, and therfore it is neither any new thing, nor any vnlawful act.

The answere.

Better answer cannot be giuen to the fathers then that which is truely gathered out of the works of the same fathers. I ther∣fore say first with Cyprian, that we must heare & attend what [ 1] Christ alone saith, in whom God is wel pleased. We must not regard what others think shuld be done,* 1.585 but what Christ who was before al, wold haue to be done: for we must not folow the custom of man, but the truth of god, so saith holy Cyprian. To which I may adde with S. Ierome,* 1.586 that y^e multitude of them that erre, bring no patronage to the error it self: & with Augu∣stine, that neither what I say, nor what thou saiest,* 1.587 but what Christ saith, ought to be regarded: & with Tertullian that that is tru, whatsoeuer was first; & that coūterfeit, whatsoeuer came after. I say secondly, that thogh the papists glorie greatly of [ 2] y^e fathers in this point; yet when their sayings are duly conside∣red, they wil make litle or nothing for their purpose. And that the reader may with perspicuitie, behold the force of their doc∣trine in this point, which hath kept my selfe long in suspence; I purpose in God to deliuer the sum thereof, by these plaine and briefe canons.

The first Canon.

The visible Church (as writeth Egesippus) remained a virgin, free from all heresies, and corruptions,* 1.588 during the

life of the Apostles, that is, about one hundred yeeres after Christ, to which time S. Iohn the euangelist was liuing. But after the death of the apostles, errors by litle and little crept in∣to the church, as into a voide and desart house. Which assertion is doleful inough, but yet profitable against the papists; as who are not ashamed impudently to auouch that after so many hun∣dred yeres from Christs ascension, there hath been no errour at all in their whorish Babylon. And a great cause of these errors is this, for that many without due examination, receiued the doctrine of him that went before them. So writeth Eusebius, that Papias a man of no sound iudgement,* 1.589 was the Author of the Chiliastes; as who first grossely inuented, that there should be 1000. yeres after the resurrection. To which error though most palpable, Irenaeus and others, otherwise wel learned, gaue place, onely for antiquitie sake. This imitation without time or reason, was, is and wil bee, the cause of many errors, which sundrie of the learned papists, haue profoundly considered. For this cause did Canus oppose himselfe against al the Thomists & Scotists,* 1.590 the old and latter papists: for this cause did Caieta∣nus [ 1] in his literall exposition of Genesis, and other bookes, con∣demne the multitude of former commentaries:* 1.591 for this cause said their learned Victoria, that he reputed nothing certaine, al∣beit al writers agreed thereunto,* 1.592 vnlesse he could finde it in the holy scriptures: for this cause their sound canonist Nauarre, did roundly reiect the common opinion,* 1.593 when it seemed not grounded vpon right reason: for this cause grauely said Saint Austen, that he reputed no mans writings free from errours, but onely the writers of the holy scriptures:* 1.594 for this cause said their owne Roffensis, that it is lawful to appeale from Austen, Cyprian,* 1.595 Hierome, and al the rest; because they are men, and do not want their imperfections. I (saith S. Austen) do not re∣pute S. Cyprians writings as canonical, but iudge them by the canonicall; and whatsoeuer doth not agree with the scriptures, that by his leaue do I refuse.

The second Canon.

Many of the ancient fathers haue not only many waies erred, but withall committed to the view of the worlde in printed bookes, that which this day is reputed and generally confessed

of al, as wel papists as good christians, to be a notorious here∣sie. The heresie is this, to wit,* 1.596 that the soules of the faithful de∣parted out of this life, doe not see God clearely till the day of doome. This opinion held Iustinus Martyr, Irenaeus, Orige∣nes, Chrysost. Theodoritus, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Augusti∣nus, Lactantius: yea, these latter writers were of the selfesame resolution, Theophilactus, Oecumenius, Euthymius, Arethas,* 1.597 and others. And to the great comfort of our Iesuits and other pa∣pists, their owne sweete S. Barnard singeth the same song, these are his words;* 1.598 Aduertistis ni fallor tres esse sanctarum sta∣tus animarum, primum videlicet in corpore corruptibili, secun∣dum sine corpore, tertium in beatitudine consummata; primū in tabernaculis, secundū inatriis tertium in domo dei. Infra▪ in il∣lam beatissimam domum, nec sine nobis intrabunt, nec sine cor∣poribus; id est, nec sancti fine plebe, nec spiritus sine carne; Ye vnderstand I weene, that there be three states of holy soules; to wit, the first in the corruptible body; the second, without the bo∣dy; the third, in perfect blisse: the first in tabernacles, the second in courts, the third in the house of God. Into that most blessed house, they shall neither enter without vs, nor yet without their bodies: that is, neither the saints without the common multi∣tude, nor the soules without the flesh.* 1.599 Again in another place the same Bernard hath these words Interim sub Christi humanitate foeliciter sancti quiescunt, in quam nimirum desiderant etiam sancti angeli prospicere, donec veniat tempus quando, iam non sub altare collocentur, sed exaltentur super altare. In the meane season, the saints rest happily vnder Christs humanitie, which doubtlesse the holy angels desire to behold, vntil the time come,* 1.600 whē they shalbe no longer hid vnder the altar, but exalted aboue the altar. So then, not only the ancient fathers, but holy and de∣uout Bernard with others of late yeres, were and continued in this grosse error, to wit, that y^e souls of the faithful dying in the Lord, shal not be admitted to the vision and fruition of God, to the sight of his diuine essence, clearely to behold his deity, vntil the general resurrection of our bodies. Further thē this (which is a scourge to the papists,) Pope Iohn the 22. of that name, professed this heretical doctrine,* 1.601 and commanded al the diuines in Paris, to teach the same. His wordes with all the due cir∣cumstances

thereof, are cited at large in my booke of Motiues These two Canons well marked, will serue for many good purposes; and especially at this time, to prooue that the opinion of the fathers, are of no more force for the inuocation of saints, thē for these other important matters already in these Canons named. For as we ouerrule them in these pointes by Gods sa∣cred word; so must we still ouerrule them by the same word; if at any time they swarue from it, either for the inuocation of saints,* 1.602 or for praying for the dead, or for marriage of priestes, or for whatsoeuer els. And so to ouerrule them, is consonant to their owne doctrine, as is already prooued.

The third Canon.

The primitiue church for the space of two hundreth & thirty yeares after Christ,* 1.603 liued vtterly destitute and vnacquainted with the merites, suffrages, intercession, and inuocation of the saintes in heauen; after which time this cacozeale by degrees proceeded, till it became perfect and consummate idolatry, as this day is seene in the church of Rome. For before this time, the papistes cannot alledge any one authenticall writer, for the inuocation of saintes in heauen.

The first obiection.

Irenaeus, who liued within one hundreth and nintie yeares after Christ,* 1.604 affirmeth expressely, that the virgin Mary was the aduocate of the virgin Eue.

The answere.

I answere, that S. Irenaeus had a farre other meaning, then such popish friuolous collection would enforce vpon him: which I prooue first indirectly,* 1.605 because the virgin Mary was not born or conceiued; much lesse a saint in heauen, for the space almost of foure thousand yeares, after the virginitie of Eue; and so doubtlesse, Eue neither did nor possibly could, inuocate the ho∣ly virgin Mary. Neither will it helpe to say, that though Eue could not then inuocate the holy virgin Mary, yet did the holie virgin pray for her, and so became her aduocate. For besides that the virgin Marie is there said, to be Eues aduocate when she was a virgin, at which time Marie the virgin was not born; the same Eue was either a Saint in heauen as soone as the virgin Mary, or a damned soule in hell. Againe, I prooue it

directly, because Irenaeus compareth the virgin Mary with the virgin Eue, to insinuate vnto vs, that we receiue no lesse good by the virgin Mary, in that she bare Christ; then euill by the vir∣gin Eue, in that she transgressed Gods holy lawes. For thus doth Irenaeus interpret himselfe, in another place in these words, Sicut Eua inobaudiens facta, et sibi & vniuerso generi humano causa facta est mortis;* 1.606 sic & Maria habens praedestinatum vi∣rum, tamē virgo obaudiens; & sibi & vniuerso generi humano causa facta est salutis. As Eue being disobedient, was the cause of deathed her selfe and to all mankinde, so Mary hauing a pre∣destinate husband, and withal an obedient virgin, was the cause of saluation both to her selfe and to all mankinde, (in that shee bare Christ, the true and only sauiour of the world.)

The second obiection.

S. Iames in his Masse (which the sixt general councel hol∣den at Constantinople admitteth) teacheth vs to inuocate the virgin Mary and all Saintes,* 1.607 and to hope for mercie by their praiers and intercessions.

The answere.

I say first, that that councell of Constantinople saith indeed, [ 1] that S. Iames did de••iuer a certain form of the masse, in which hee shewed the custome of mingling water with the wine; but of praying to Peter or to Paule, it hath not one worde at all.

I say secondly, that pope Gregorie (who liued well neere [ 2] an hundred yeares before that councell,) either knewe no such masse deliuered by S. Iames, or at least reputed it for a coun∣terfait and forged thing. For the same Gregory auoucheth (as shalbe prooued when I come to speake of the Masse,* 1.608) that the Apostles did celebrate the holy communion, onely with the Lordes praier: and their owne deere frier Carranza witnes∣seth the same, while he confesseth that there is no such traditi∣on extant, as that whereof the councell speaketh. Whereby it well appeareth with what intolerable burdens and counterfaite bookes, the papistes doe this day oppresse and seduce the sim∣ple people. For this disholy Masse is currant euery where, and my selfe haue one of the bookes.

The fourth Canon.

In the daies of Origen, (who liued about the yeare of our Lord 233.) the first seede of the inuocation of Saintes began to be sowen.* 1.609 Which seed so sowen by Origen, was but a step or degree to popish inuocation. For besides that Origen onely taught this, that saintes in heauen doe pray for vs, and not that we on earth should pray to them; this his doctrine was not de∣finitiue and resolute, but doubtfull, opinatiue, and disputable. This Canon Origen himselfe hath deliuered to vs,* 1.610 whose ex∣presse words are these. Sed requiris qui sunt isti qui pugnant, & quae est illa pugna quam illi gerunt. Ego sic arbitror, quod omnes illi qui dormierunt ante nos patres, pugnent nobiscum, & adiuuent nos orationibus suis. Ita namque etiam quendam de se∣nioribus magistris audiui dicentem. But thou requirest who they are that fight, and what that battaile is, which they fight. I am of this opinion, that all the fathers which are before vs and are dead, doe fight with vs, and doe helpe vs with their praiers; for so I heard one of our old maisters say. Againe, in another place thus;* 1.611 Sed & omnes sancti qui de hac vita decesserunt, habentes adhuc charitatem erga eos qui in hoc mundo sunt, si dicantur curā gerere salutis eorum & iuuare eos precibus suis, atque in∣teruentu suo apud deum, non erit inconueniens. But also all saints which are departed hence, and haue still charitie towards them which are in this world, if wee say they haue care of their saluation, and help them with their praiers and intercession be∣fore God, it shal not be a thing inconuenient. Out of which say∣inges [ 1] of Origen I note first, that he speaketh only of the prai∣ers which saintes in heauen make for vs, and not one word of our praying to them. I note secondly, that to holde that the [ 2] saintes in heauen doe pray for vs, is not a constant position in Origens doctrine; but only an opinion and disputable question. I proue it, because he saith (arbitror, I think.) Again, because he saith; non erit inconueniens, it shal not be incōuenient. Third∣ly, because he saith (audiu•• ita dicentem; I heard one say so.)

The fi••st obiection.

Origen in his book de paenitentia saith, y^t he will fall prostrate on his knees, and inuocate all the saintes in heauen, that they will helpe him, because he dare not pray to God for himselfe.

The answere.

I say first, that this assertion fathered vpon Origen, will confute it selfe: for how could Origen or anie faithfull christian, [ 1] be in feare humbly to inuocate our most mercifull God,* 1.612 who willeth all to come to him that are in distresse; who promiseth to heare all those that in their trouble call vpon him. Who graunteth to vs whatsoeuer we aske in his sonnes name, who hath appointed his sonne, to make intercession for vs. I say se∣condly, [ 2] that this booke alledged in the obiection is not Origens, but a plaine counterfeit. And I prooue it effectually,* 1.613 because their owne pope Gelasius hath so resolued.

The 2. obiection.

Origen saith,* 1.614 that the fathers of the churche appointed the feast day of the holy Innocentes, and that by the will of God, that so their intercession might profite their parentes.

The answere.

I say first, that if all this were graunted, it could but at the most proue, that the saints pray for vs, which in a good sense [ 1] may be admitted. For I willingly graunt that the saintes in heauen doe in generall maner and termes pray for vs; that is, that they wishe vs to perseuere in the true faith and feare of God,* 1.615 and y^t in the end we may be partakers with thē of eternal glory. I say secondly, that sundry learned men doe thinke these homilies (from whence this obiection is taken) not to be any [ 2] part of Origens workes. I say thirdly, that if Origen doe make that a constant doctrine in one place, which he graunteth to be [ 3] a disputable question in another place; what remaineth, but to thinke his opinion therein to be of no force. I say fourthly, that [ 4] the papistes (as their Ruffinus recordeth,* 1.616) will admit nothing in Origen, which disliketh them; but reiect all such stuffe, as in∣farsed into his workes by the heretickes. Let them therefore giue vs leaue also to reiect in Origen, if in any place he seeme to approoue inuocation of saintes, as that which is infarsed by the heretickes: specially because in other places, he teacheth the contrary doctrine.

The fift Canon.* 1.617

About 20. yeares after that Origen had doubtfully disputed

the praying of saintes for vs; S. Cyprian and S. Cornelius set down that point resolutely, as standing no longer in doubt ther∣of; to wit, that the saintes in heauen doe pray for the liuing here on earth. For they made this couenaut, that whether of them soeuer should die the first, should pray for his brethren and sisters yet liuing.* 1.618 These are S. Cyprians owne wordes; Et si quis istinc nostrum prior diuinae dignationis celeritate praecesse∣rit, perseueret apud dominum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororib apud misericordiam patris noncesset oratio. And if either of vs shall through Gods mercie die before the other, let our loue continue still in Gods sight; let vs not cease to desire the fauour of God for our brethren and sisters yet liuing. Thus saith S. Cyprian. Out of whose wordes, I note first, that to [ 1] be established in his time, which was but in opinion and doubt∣full case, in the daies of Origen. To wit, that the saintes in [ 2] heauen pray for vs here on earth. I note secondly, that the in∣uocation of saintes in heauen, was neither established in saint Cyprians time, neither once called into question. I note third∣ly, [ 3] that popish inuocation of Saintes, sprung vp by little and little, from one degree to another.

The sixt Canon.

* 1.619About an hundreth yeares after S. Cyprian, (which was about 350. yeares after Christ) some of the fathers by rhetori∣call apostrophees, did applie their orations to the dead, as if they had been liuing. Of which sort were S. Basill and saint Gregory Nazianzene,* 1.620 who though they did but inuocate the saints figuratiuely, and of a certain excessiue zeale, yet did such their inuocations minister occasion to the papistes, of all their superstition in that behalfe. These are the wordes of S. Gre∣gory Nazianzene; Audite populi, tribus linguae, homines om∣nes cu••usuis generis & aetaetis, quicunque & nunc estis, & exi∣stetis Infra, audiat quoque Constantini magni anima, si quis mortuis sensus est, omnes{que} eorum qui ante eum imperium tenue∣runt, piae Christi{que} amantes animae. Heare O people, kinreds, tongues,* 1.621 nations, ages, whosoeuer are now liuing, or shalbe borne hereafter. Let also the soule of Constantine the Great heare, & all the christian godly soules of the Emperors before him, if the dead perceiue any thing at all. And againe in another

place, he thus writeth; At ô pascha, magnum inquam & sacro sanctum pascha, totiusque mundi piaculum! te enim quasi vita praeditum alloquor. But O Passeouer, the great I say, and sa∣cred Passeouer, and the purgation of the whole world. For I call vpon thee, as if thou hadst life. Thus writeth Nazianzene, by whose wordes we may measure both the rest of his sayings, and of the other fathers. First therefore I note, that hee doth [ 1] inuocate aswell senselesse thinges, as reasonable soules. Se∣condly, [ 2] hee calleth vpon the soules of all the people in the world, whereof some were damned in the bottome of hell, and so could not heare, as euery learned papist will admit. Third∣ly, he inuocateth those that are yet vnborne. Vpon these sandie [ 3] foundations, are built all popish superstitious inuocations.

The 7. Canon.

Catholique doctrine is that, (as Vincentius Lyrinensis,* 1.622 who liued aboue a thousand yeares agoe, defineth it;) which hath been receiued constantly, of al the faithful, at al times, and in all places. Which Vincentius is, and euer was of great reputati∣on, with and amongst al learned papists; and consequently, since popish inuocation of Saintes, neither was constantly receiued of all the faithfull, neither in all places, neither at al times,* 1.623 (as which was not heard of for many hundreth yeares after Christ) it cannot be, deemed catholicke doctrine, no not by popishe pro∣ceeding. This Canon ought to be well remembred, as which of it selfe ouerthroweth al Romish religion.

An obiection.

S Chrysostomes Masse, which was generally vsed in the Greeke church, maketh expresse mention of the inuocation of Saintes, and the same doctrine is taught in sundry places of his workes.

The answere.

I say first,* 1.624 that in S. Chrysostomes time (which was more then 400. yeres after Christ,) this superstitious inuocation had gotten deepe roote in the heartes of the vulgar sort. For which cause S. Chrysostome did zealously in many sermons, induce them wholly and solie to inuocate the liuing God. One or two places I will alledge, for the better satisfaction of the Reader.

thus therefore doth hee write; Dic mihi mulier quemadinodum ausa es cum sis peccatrix & iniqua,* 1.625 accedere ad eum? ego, inquit, noui quid agam Vide prudentiam mulieris; non rogat Iacobum, non obsecrat Ioannem, neque pergit ad Petrum, nec intendit A∣postolorum chorum, non quaesiuit mediatorem; sed pro omni∣bus illis paenitentiam accepit comitem, quae aduocati locum impleuit, & sic ad summum fontem perrexit. Propterea, in∣quit, descendit, propterea carnem assumpsit, & homo factus est, vt & ego ei aude••m loqui. Tell mee O woman, howe thou being a great sinner darest come vnto God? I, saieth she, know what I haue to doe. Behold the wisdome of the wo∣man: she desires not Iames, she praies not Iohn, shee goes not to Peter: shee neither respected the companie of the Apo∣stles, nor sought for a mediatour; but in steed of them all shee tooke true repentance for her fellowe, which supplied the place of an aduocate, and so she came to the chiefe fountaine. For this end (saith shee) did Christ descend; for this end did hee take our nature vpon him, and was made man, that I may boldly speak vnto him.* 1.626 Againe in another place, the same S. Chrysostome saith thus; Sin vero sobrie agemus, etiam per nosmetipsos istud valeamus efficere & multo magis per nos quam per alios. Nam & Deus gratiam non tam aliis rogantibus pro nobis▪ quam nobis vult donare; quo & fruamur libertate Deum compellandi, & emendemur, dum ipsi studemus deum reconciliare sic Chananaeam illam aliquando miseratus est, sic etiam meretrici donauit salu∣tem, sic latronem nullo patrono, nullo mediatore intercedente. But if we will deale soberly, wee may dispatche that by our owne selues, and a great deale better by our selues, then by o∣thers. For God will giue vs his grace, not so muche for the praiers of others, as for our owne sake; that so wee may haue libertie to call vpon God, and to amend our liues, while wee seeke to bee reconciled to him. So had hee mercie on the wo∣man of Chanaan, so gaue hee remission of sinnes to the adulte∣resse, so did hee saue the theefe without any patrone, without any mediatour. Thus saith Saint Chrysostome. Out of whose [ 1] wordes I note first, that hee greatly commendeth those, who will immediately call vpon God, and neither seeke to Peter, nor to Paule, nor to anie mediatour but Christ Iesus. I

note secondly, that hee greatly reprooueth all such, as are [ 2] afraid to call vpon God by reason of their sins, te••l••••g thē that a penitent heart, is the chief patron before God. Thirdly, that [ 3] Christ Iesus tooke our nature vpon him for this end, that sin∣ners may boldly call vpon him. I note fourthly, that God wil [ 4] sooner heare our selues thē other for vs. I note fiftly, that whē [ 5] we cal vpon god immediatly, we confirm our christian libertie.

I say secondly, that the masse which goeth abroad vnder the name of S. Chrysostome, is a meere counterfeit: for first there [ 2] be diuers copies and diuerse translations, whereof neuer one [ 1] agreeth with another. Againe, if S. Chrysostome had written a∣ny such masse, he should be contrarie to himselfe in sundrie pla∣ces [ 2] of his works. Thirdly, because if S. Iames, S. Basil, & S. [ 3] Chrysostome, shoulde euerie one of them haue made a masse,* 1.627 as popish printed bookes tel vs, it must needes follow, (which the papists will not wel like of,) that the bishop of Rome hadde in those dayes smal authoritie. For now a dayes nothing may be done without the popes consent, but then bishops made masses at their pleasure, and the pope made none at all. Fourthly, be∣cause in this supposed S. Chrysost. masse, there is often repea∣ted [ 4] this blasphemous prayer: Saue vs by the prayers of thy saints. Fiftly, because prayer is there made for pope Nicholas [ 5] and for the Empereur Alexius, who both liued long after S. Chrysostomes death; the one 500. yeares: the other 800. yeares.

I say thirdly, that the other places of S. Chrysostom are euen [ 3] like to his masse; and whosoeuer thinketh otherwise, must say that he is contrarie to himselfe, as is alreadie proued.

CHAP. VIII. Of Popish Pilgrimage.

GOds people of late yeres haue beene wonderfully seduced, and that by the sinister and false perswasion of the papists; who taught them to merite their saluation by gadding on pil∣grimage, to visit stocks, stones, and dead mens bones. The whole summe whereof for perspicuitie sake, I shall reduce to certaine briefe conclusions.

The first conclusion.

* 1.628The common people about the yeare of our Lord, 420. were so addicted to sundry kinds of superstition, partly by the instinct of Satan, partly by the negligence of some Bishops, and partly by the vndiscreet doctrine of othersome, that S. Au∣sten was at his wits end, not knowing which way to turne him, or what to do, because he vtterly condemned many things in his heart, which he durst not freely reprooue & speake against. This conclusion will seeme strange to many a one,* 1.629 but S. Au∣sten doth himselfe deliuer it to vs, whose expresse words are these: Quod autem instituitur praeter consuetudinem, vt quasi obseruatto sacramenti sit, approbare non possum, etiamsi mul∣ta huiusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulen∣tarum personarum scandala vitanda, liberius improbare non audeo. Sed hoc nimis doleo, quòd multa quae in diuinis libris salu∣berrima praecepta sunt, minus curantur, & tam multis praesump∣tionibus sic plena sunt omnia, vt grauius corripiatur qui per octauas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit, quam qui mentem vino∣lentia sepelierit. Omnia itaque talia, quae neque sanctarum scripturarum authoritatibus continētur, nec in concilijs episco∣porum statuta inueniuntur, nec consuetudine vniuersae ecclesiae roborata sunt, sed diuersorum locorum diuersis moribus innume∣rabiliter variantur, ita vt vix aut omnino nunquam inueniri possint causae, quas in eis instituendis homines secuti sunt; vbi facultas tribuitur, sine vlla dubitatione resecanda existimo. Quamuis enim neque hoc inueniri possit, quomodo contra fidem fint, ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis & manifestissi∣mis celebrationum sacramentis misericordia dei esse liberam vo∣luit, seruilibus oneribus premunt, vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint, legali∣bus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur.

I can not approue that, which beside custome is ordeyned to be obserued as an holy thing, albeit to auoid the scandall of some persons that are either holy or troublous, I dare not freely reprehēd many such things. But I am very sory for this, that many wholesome precepts in Gods bookes are little re∣garded,* 1.630 and that all things are so full of presumptions, that he is more sharply reprooued, which toucheth the ground in his

octaues with his bare foote, then he that shall lye drunken in the streete. All things therefore which neither are contayned in the holy scriptures, neither in the decrees of bishops, neither established by the custome of the vniuersal church, but are infi∣nitely varied by the diuersitie of maners in diuerse places, so that seldome or neuer the causes can be knowen, which men re∣spected in the ordinance thereof,* 1.631 I thinke they are to be taken away without any stop, where power and authority is at hand. For although it cannot bee found, howe they make against the catholike faith, yet doe they clog the religion with seruile bon∣dage, which our mercifull God would haue freely celebrated with verie few and manifest sacraments, so that now the con∣dition of the Iewes is more tolerable, who though they haue not acknowledged the time of libertie, yet are they subiect to legal burdens, not to humaine presumptions. Thus saith holy and learned Austen. Out of whose words I note first, that S. [ 1] Austen for feare of scandall and other humaine respects, durst not speake all he thought, nor freely reproue euerie abuse as he wished in his heart. I note secondly, that al the bishops & lear∣ned [ 2] fathers of the church, did not at all times like and approue all things, which were publikely done in the church, thogh they spoke not flatly and openly against the same. Which point if it be wel noted, doth more then a little gall our papists.

I note thirdly, that Gods word was little regarded euen [ 3] in Saint Austens time, and that superstition in steede thereof raigned euerie where; and therefore no maruell if so much Ro∣mish trumperie, did after Saint Austens time abound in their visible church.

I note fourthly, that euen in Saint Austens dayes odde [ 4] conceits of superstitious trumperie, were more regarded then the chiefest points of religion.

I note fiftly, that manie superstitious errours, haue crept into the church, the causes wereof neither are nor can bee [ 5] knowen, and therefore by Saint Austens iudgement all such trumperie ought to bee cut off by the authoritie of the Magistrate.

I note sixtly, that the church was brought into seruile bon∣dagt, [ 6] by reason of beggarly ceremonies, & other superstition; so

as in S. Austens time the state of the Iewes was more tole∣rable, then the condition of faithful christians. I note seauenth∣ly, [ 7] that the christian libertie of the new testament, may not bee charged with superfluous ceremonies.

The second conclusion.

The bodies, bones, and reliques of Gods Saints and mar∣tyres, are not to be contēned, reiected, or disdainfully cast away, but to be buried honourably and esteemed reuerently, as wel to giue a signe of our hope in the resurrection of our bodies and theirs, as to signifie their true faith in the euerliuing God. This conclusion may euidently be proued, by many texts of ho¦ly writ;* 1.632 Pretious in the sight of the Lord (saith Dauid) is the death of his saints. Again in another place; Great are the trou∣bles of the righteous, but the Lord deliuereth him out of them all;* 1.633 he keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken. Againe in another place; Blessed are the dead, which die in the Lord: & in another place the Psalmograph yeeldeth the reason why the bodies & reliques of y^e dead be honorable,* 1.634 to wit, for the hope of the resurrection, & that they shal once be glorified: for my flesh (saith he) shall rest in hope;* 1.635 and in the Hebrew more significant∣ly (shall dwell in hope,) to expresse the full assurance of the resurrection.* 1.636 In this hope did S. Ioseph cause his fathers bo∣die be enbalmed, & being accompanied with al the seruants of R. Pharao both the elders of his house, & all the elders of the land of Egypt, and with his brethren, and others of his fathers house, he went vp into the land of Canaā, there to burie his fa∣ther with great honour and solemnitie.* 1.637 The prophet Daniel when he died, was buried with great honor; so was Micheas, Ioel, & many others, the prophets, apostles, & seruants of the liuing god.* 1.638 In regard wherof prudently said Syrach; Let their bones flourish out of their place, and their names by succession remaine to them that are most famous of their children. All which Saint Austen comprised briefly in these golden words;* 1.639 Nec tamen contemnenda & abiicienda sunt corpora defuncto∣rum, maximèque iustorum atque fidelium, quibus tanquam or∣ganis & vasis ad omnia bona opera sanctus vsus est spiritus. Si enim paterna vestis, & annulus, ac si quid huiusmodi tanto charius est posteris, quanto erga parentes maior extitit affec∣tus,

nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, quae vtique multo familiarius atque coniunctius, quam quaelibet indumenta gesta∣mus. Haec enim non ad ornamētum vel adiutorium quod adhibe∣tur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Nei∣ther are the bodies of the dead to be dispised and cast away, spe∣cially the bodies of the iust and of the faithful, whom the holie ghost hath vsed as instruments and vessels to all good workes. For if the fathers garment, and ring, and the like, bee so much the dearer to the posteritie, by howe much our affection was greater to our parents; then doubtlesse their bodies are no way to be contemned, which are more familiar and nearer to vs, thē anie garment; for they pertaine not to the ornament or helpe which we vse externally, but euen to the nature of man it selfe.

The third conclusion.

To goe from place to place, on pilgrimage, to learne expe∣rience, ciuil maners, customes and lawes of other countries, or christianly to profit others therby, is a godly act & highly to be commended. The painful & godly peregrinatiōs of Christ him selfe, and of his chosen vessels,* 1.640 will make this conclusion eui∣dent. For Christ was conceiued in Nazareth, borne in Bethle∣hem, the eight day presented in Hierusalem. Hee fled into E∣gypt, he returned and dwelt in Nazareth. Being twelue yeres of age hee disputed in the temple at Hierusalem, from whence he returned with his parents, and came to Nazareth. Be∣ing thirtie yeeres olde, hee was baptized in Iorden, temp∣ted of the Deuill in the wildernesse, placed on a Pinnacle of the temple,* 1.641 and after that carried into an exceeding high moun∣taine. In Cana of Galilee he was present at a marriage, where he changed water into wine. Hee abode a while at Ca∣pernaum, with his mother and his friendes. He went through∣out Galilee teaching in the synagogues. Besides the sea of Galilee, hee calleth Simon, Andrew, Iames and Iohn. From thence he came to the region of the Gerasenes where the swine were drowned in the sea by the deuils.* 1.642 He came to Hierusalem at the feast of Easter,* 1.643 he entred into a ship to auoid the prease of the people; and sent his apostles two by two to preach the go∣spel. He went into the mountaine when the people would haue

made him king: he sayled into Magedan & Dalmanutha, he re∣turnd to Bethsaida,* 1.644 & came into the coasts of Cesaria Philip∣pi. He was transfigured in the mount Thabor, he returned to Capernaum, and passed through the middes of Samaria: hee sent his twelue disciples to Hierusalem to the feast of Taber∣nacles, and secretly followed after them. He sent his messen∣gers to Samaria, the Samaritaines would not receiue them; he came to Hierusalem and taught openly in the temple. He sent 72. disciples two by two into euerie place, whither hee would come. In Bethania Martha did intertaine him. In the feast of the dedication hee walked in the temple in Salomons porch, euen in the winter season. Hee passed into the coasts of Iewrie beyond Iorden, where Iohn did first baptize: in Be∣thania he raised vp Lazarus from death to life: thence he went to Ephraim beside the desert where hee fasted: hee came to Bethphage beside the mount Oliuet, he entred into Hierusa∣lem riding on an asse-colt, whereon neuer man sate before: he went vp into the temple, and did cast out them that bought and solde therein; hee returned to Bethania, and went againe to Hierusalem, where hee ate the Paschal lambe. After supper he went forth with his disciples ouer the brooke Cedron, into the Garden of Geth-semani, where he praied while drops of bloud trickled downe his cheekes: after his praier he returned to his disciples, was apprehended by Iudas and his complices, was led away to Annas first, then to Caiphas, then to Pilate, then to Herode, then to Pilate againe; after whipped, and scour∣ged, crowned with a crowne of thorne, condemned and crucifi∣ed. And all this long, tedious, paineful, and bitter pilgrimage, Christ Iesus the sonne of God, suffered for the sinnes and loue of man.

Saint Paul likewise the chosen vessell of God, had a long and painefull pilgrimage for the Gospel sake. For being mi∣raculously conuerted, from a raging Wolfe to bee a meeke sheepe, from a mortall foe to bee a deere friende, from a cruell persecutour to become an holy Apostle; hee foorthwith prea∣ched the gospel at Damascus. From thence hee went to Ara∣bia,* 1.645 from Arabia hee turned againe to Damascus, and after three yeres came to Ierusalem. Before which time the Iewes

at Damascus tooke counsell to kill S. Paul,* 1.646 and for that end they watched the gates day and night. But the disciples tooke him by night, put him through the wal, and let him downe by a rope in a basket. The Iews laid hands on him, while he was in the temple at Hierusalem. They lay in waite to kill him, but the chiefe captaine cōmanded to bind him with two chains, & to leade him into the castle: he caused him also to be scourged and examined, and sent him away to Felix the gouernour: hee came to Antiochia by the meanes of Barnabas, where they twaine taught the people a whole yere,* 1.647 insomuch that the dis∣ciples were first called christians in that place. From Antioche he went with Barnabas to carrie their charitable almes, which the Antiochians sent to the faithfull in Iudea: he passed from Antioche to Seleucus, and from thence he sayled to Cy∣prus, from Cyprus to Salamis, and thence to Paphus where he found a Iewe named Bariesus, who was with the deputie Sergius Paulus: from Paphus he wēt to Perga, from Per∣ga to Antioche not in Syria but in Pisidia,* 1.648 and afterwarde to Iconium. But being stoned at Iconium hee fled to Lystra and Derbe the cities of Lycania, and to the regions round about. He returned to visite the brethren in euerie citie where hee had preached, stablishing the churches of Syria and Cilicia. And when he had gone throughout Phrygia,* 1.649 and the region of Ga∣latia, he was forbidden of the holy ghost to preach in Asia. And being admonished in a vision to go into Macedonia, he went to Troas, from Troas to Samothracia, from Samothracia to Neapolis, from Neapolis to Philippi, the chife Citie in the parts of Macedonia. After this he returned to Ierusalem,* 1.650 and being cast in prison, he pleaded his cause before Felix and Dru∣silla his wife; before Agrippa, Festus and Bernice, and ap∣pealing to Cesar hee was sent to Rome, where afterward hee was beheaded, as approued histories make relation.

So Lycurgus (as authenticall histories record) profited much by his pilgrimage into forren countries. So did also the De∣cemuiri of y^e Romans, while by their pilgrimage into Greece, they learned their prudent politike lawes, and trained vppe their owne people accordingly. More commendable then all these, was the pilgrimage of y^e three wise men that came from

farre, to adore the sweete babe that was newly borne, Christ the Sauior of the world.* 1.651 Neither for all that was the pilgri∣mage of the queene of Saba to be reprooued, when she came so many hundred miles to heare and trie King Salomons wise∣dome.

The fourth conclusion.

Popish inuocation, adoration, visitation, translation, eleuati∣on, asportation, and reseruation, is superstitious, blasphemous, and idololatrical. This conclusion is euidently proued, by that which is already said of the inuocation and adoration of saints. For if no religious worship nor adoration can be giuen to the liuing saints, as is already proued; much lesse may that which is contained in this conclusion, be yeelded to the dead bodies & reliques of the same. And doubtlesse the faithlesse Gentiles haue not committed more grosse and palpable idolatrie in ado∣ring their idols, then our late Papists in adoring their relikes. For first, when the relique which they terme (Ʋultus sanctus) [ 1] is eleuated as solemnly as their bread-god in the masse, though not ouer the priests head, but publiquely in both his hands; the people of Rome are taught to crie aloude; misericordi, miseri∣cordi, mercie, mercie, for our sinnes. Which, as euerie child [ 2] knoweth, is the proper inuocation of God himselfe. Againe, they doe ascribe so much Religion in handling, and in tou∣ching the tabernacles or coffers, wherein the reliques are put, that the lay people may scarcely touch them with their bare handes, or yet the priestes eleuate the same, vnlesse they first adore them vpon their knees, and in their surplesses with stoles about their neckes. Thirdly, they thinke, that if their beades [ 3] do but once touch those coffers, they receiue a great holinesse from thence. Fourthly, they think that to come on pilgrimage [ 4] to Rome especially, is a great parte of satisfaction for their sinnes. Fiftly, they thinke it a farre greater holines to pray [ 5] in one place, then in another; greater at one altar then at ano∣ther; more blessed in one church then in an other; and that it is the next step to heauen, to say masse, or cause masse to be said, [ 6] at the church of the blessed virgin in Lauretto. Sixtly, they

repute such holines in externall rites, and corruptible reliques; that the bone of a dead dogge,* 1.652 (if it be saide by any to be a re∣lique of a saint) will drawe them with facilitie to touch it, to kisse it, and to adore it, as if it were God almightie. For which cause saint Austen saieth truely, that many bodies are adored vpon earth, whose soules are damned in hell. Yea, the dead corps of Hermannus was adored for a saint twenty yeeres at Ferrara; who yet was an heretique,* 1.653 as writeth their owne Platina.

The first obiection.

They are vndoubtedly the true relikes of true saints, which the church appointeth to be adored euery where. And saint Au∣sten speaketh onely against priuate abuses of certaine priuate persons, not against the generall practise of y^e vniuersal church. For the vse of the church is, first to canonize the saint, and after to propose his relikes to be adored. Which church being there∣in directed by the holy ghost, cannot erre as you imagine.

The answer.

I say first, that how your church both may erre and hath er∣red de facto▪ is already prooued. I say secondly, that your ab∣uses [ 1] are as generall as your reliques. For you all teach to a∣dore [ 2] all your reliques religiously, in all places wheresoeuer: insomuch as your owne Ludouicus Ʋiues granteth,* 1.654 that many christians do sinne no lesse in adoring their images and relikes, then do the Gentiles in adoring their false gods. I say third∣ly, that your worshipping of reliques is flatly reproued by S. [ 3] Paul, in what maner soeuer ye doe it.* 1.655 The apostle of Christ yeeldeth this reason, because it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 voluntarie wor∣ship••, not contained in Gods word. I say fourthly, that if Christs crosse must therefore be adored, because it touched [ 4] Christs bodie (which is the reason of popish adoration) euen so ought the lippes of Iudas to be adored, because they touched Christs sacred mouth. This reason is inuincible, if it be well vrged. I say fiftly, that the Pope may erre in canonizing [ 5] your Saints:* 1.656 as your owne Doctour Melchior Canus tel∣leth you, neither can Aquinas indeede denie the same. And

certes, as the pope may erre in canonizing your saintes, so may he much more erre in determining such and such reliques, to be the bodies, bones, or ashes of such and such saintes; and conse∣quently, so may all papistes adoring them commit idolatry, yea though it were granted that true reliques might be adored; be∣cause as S. Austen grauely saide, their reliques are adored on earth, whose soules are broyling in hell fire.

[ 6] I say sixtly, that when the pope taketh vpon him not only to canonize saintes, but withall not to erre in so doing; he doubt∣lesse chalengeth to himselfe the authoritie of God omnipotent. and may therefore fitly be called Antichrist: howsoeuer the Ie∣suites and his other vassals, labour to defend him in this.

The second obiection.

* 1.657If it were not a godly act to adore holy reliques, & to tran∣slate them from place to place, as the church hath a long time vsed; holy Moses who had Gods spirite largely, would neuer haue so reuerenced the dead body of S. Ioseph, nor yet haue caried it so many miles.

The answere.

I say first, that the flesh of Iosephs bodie was wholy consu∣med, [ 1] and nothing left but bones and ashes. For the Israelites abode in Egypt about 215. yeares, after the death of holy Io∣seph. I say secondly, that as the wicked gaine nothing, by be∣ing [ 2] buried in temples after the christian maner; euen so neither are the godly worse, for being buried in places prophane. For they who die in the warres for the seruice of their Soueraigne, and defence of their natiue countrey, are doubtlesse in as good case, notwithstanding their base kinde of funerall, as if they had died at home, and been buried with all pompe and so∣lemnitie. I say thirdly, that the translation of S. Iosephes [ 3] bones out of Egypt, was not for religion sake, whereof holy Writ maketh no mention; but to shew his hope and confidence in Gods promise, and to confirme the faith of his brethren. For these are the wordes; God will surely visite you, and yee shal take my bones away hence with you. As if he had said; Haue full trust in Gods promise for your deliuerance: for vndoub∣tedly God will bring you into the land of Chanaan, as he hath

said; and for the better confirmation thereof,* 1.658 I appoint my bones to be taken with you thither: and for this end doth the A∣postle ascribe this charge giuen to Iosephes brethren, to the great commendation of his faith.

The third obiection.

The scripture telleth vs that Helcana and Anna his wife, went thrise in the yeare on pilgrimage to Hierusalem.* 1.659 Sun∣drie of the Greekes left their owne countrey, and came to adore in Hierusalem. The Eunuch came from farre, to adore in the same place. S. Paul himselfe made haste in his iourney, that he might keepe Pentecost at Hierusalem. Christ likewise with his mother Mary, and S. Ioseph her husband, came on pilgri∣mage to Hierusalem.

The answere.

I say first, that God appointed his temple at Hierusalem,* 1.660 to be the peculiar place of his externall worship; and that al his people should repaire thither, at three seueral times in the yere. [ 1] To wit, at Easter, Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles.* 1.661 So that S. Ioseph, S. Marie, S. Anna, and Helcana went to Hie∣rusalem at that day; euen as we doe nowe to the Church, to heare diuine seruice and sermons. And therefore their pilgri∣mage was honourable, and highly to be commended.

I say secondly, that Christ himselfe went not of any necessi∣ty, [ 2] but for our sake,* 1.662 and to giue vs an example of obedience and humilitie. For hee came to fulfill the lawe, not to dissolue the same. I say thirdly, that saint Paul hasted thither for the gos∣pel [ 3] sake, because then there would be great concourse of peo∣ple, whom he desired to instruct with godly sermons. I say fourthly, that as Iosephus writeth, sundry of the conuerted gen∣tiles, [ 4] as the Eunuch, Cornelius, and others, vsed to resort to Ierusalem with the dispersed Iewes, where they adored the liuing God then, as we do now in the church neere at home. But they went not to adore stockes and stones as the papists do, nor to put religion in dead creatures.

The fourth obiection.

Going on pilgrimage is a very auncient custome, and

that for religion sake: for S. Alexander a most holy martyr, (who liued aboue a thousand and two hundreth yeares agoe,* 1.663) went for that end to Hierusalem, as writeth Eusebius in his hi∣storie.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that to go on pilgrimage is an holy and auncient thing indeed; as which both Christ himselfe, S. Paule, and o∣ther holy men haue practised, as I haue already graunted. I [ 2] say secondly, that though Saint Alexander had a great affec∣tion, to see those places where Christ hadde been present, and wrought his miracles;* 1.664 yet did he neither think his praiers more acceptable in y^e place then in an other: nor yet thought his iour∣ney to be any part of satisfaction for his sinnes. For hee knew right well,* 1.665 that whosoeuer will worship God truely, must wor∣ship him neither in the mountaines, neither in Hierusalem, but [ 3] in spirite and veritie. I say thirdly, y^t as going on pilgrimage is commendable in some,* 1.666 and tolerable in other some; so is it necessary to saluation in none, and very vnfit for many. Which thing their own S. Bernard can tel them, whose iudg∣ment [ 4] I am well assured, no papist will refuse. I say fourthly, that popishe pilgrimage was not knowne in Christes church, for the space of manie hundreth yeares after Christes sacred in∣carnation. Neither shall the papistes euer be able, to cite anie authenticall writer for the contrary.

The fift obiection.

* 1.667S. Ambrose telleth great miracles done by the bodies of S. Geruasius and Protasius, while they were touched lying on the coffin. S Austen reciteth like miracles, which were wrought by the reliques of S. Steuen. S. Chrysostome, Eusebius, Palla∣dius, and diuers others, make mention of the like miracles: Yea, the holy scripture it selfe telleth vs, that myracles were done euen by touching the reliques of Elizaeus. Why there∣fore may not the people this day resorte to suche places,* 1.668 where such wonderfull miracles haue been done? for to get helpe ei∣ther of corporall diseases, or spirituall, is the cause of their go∣ing thither. And for corporall helpes, your selues this day go to S. Anne of Buxton, and to other like places.

The answere.

I say first, that the scripture telleth vs of the death of Saint Steuen, of S. Ioseph, of Moses, and others, as also of their [ 1] funerals▪ but not one word of inuocatiō or adoration done vnto their reliques. I say secondly, that y^e fathers which tel vs of the [ 2] miracles done by the reliques of saintes, doe neither will vs to inuocate, nor to adore them. I say thirdly, that miracles, (as [ 3] S. Austen and S. Gregory doe truely write,) are for infidels and not for the faithfull. For which respect they were frequent in the primitiue Church, & as rare as a white crowe, or black swanne in latter daies. I say fourthly, that God wrought mi∣racles by the reliques of his chosen seruantes, aswel to prooue [ 4] his owne diuine soueraigntie, as their true faith in him. But not that we should adore dumbe bones, and dead ashes; or seeke to merite by such pilgrimage. I say fiftly, that God confirmed the authoritie of Elizaeus, by the myracle wrought at the con∣tact [ 5] of his dead bones; that at the sight thereof, the people might embrace his doctrine, which they contemned in his life time; or at least be thereby confounded, to their greater condem∣nation. And the same I say of other miracles, done by other re∣liques. I say sixtly, y^t if the good king Ezechias was highly cō∣mended [ 6] in the holy scripture,* 1.669 because he pulled downe the bra∣sen serpent set vp by Gods appointment, so soone as the people committed idolatry by adoring the same; worthily are those christian princes commended, who prohibite their people from gadding on pilgrimage, in popish idolatricall maner; albeit y^e originall therof was tolerable, and a long time free from popish godles superstition. I say seuenthly, that waters haue natural curatiue qualities in sundrie places, as haue also certain herbs, [ 7] stones, and metals. Which effects some ascribe to the water of Burton, though my selfe haue long doubted thereof. How soeuer that be, to go thither for merite, or in way of such satis∣faction for our sinnes, is flat idolatrie.

The sixt obiection.

S. Iustine, (who liued shortly after the apostles,) telleth of great honour done vnto reliques;* 1.670 as that the bodies of martyrs defended men from the diuels, & cured many incurable diseases.

The answere.

I say first, that Iustinus liued more then one hundreth and [ 1] fiftie yeares after Christ, and speaketh nothing at all of adorati∣on. Only this he saith, that great myracles haue been done at the Sepulchres of martyrs, which no learned man can or will denie. I say secondly, that the questions from whence your ob∣iection came, are counterfait, and not S. Iustins indeed. I prooue [ 2] it, because in the 82. and in the 86. questions, I finde menti∣on made of Origen, who was borne long after the death of S. Iustinus. So likewise in the 127. question, mention is made of the Manichees, who yet followed long after S. Iustines death.

CHAP. IX. Of Christian righteousnesse or iustification.

THe Papistes doe not onely dishonour God, while they seek to establish their owne righteousnesse; but withall they slan∣der good and true christians, auouching them to be contemners of good workes: but how blasphemous they be on the one side, and howe malitious on the other, shall sufficiently appeare, by these briefe conclusions.

The first conclusion.

Man albeit hee was so created as hee might sinne and die, (which thing the euent it selfe declared;) yet was he so adorned and beautified, with supernaturall giftes and graces, aswel ex∣ternal as internal, that he might haue liued eternally, and haue eschewed all sinne world without end. This conclusion I thus proue. That man might haue liued euer if he had not sinned, is euident by Gods owne wordes, when he saith; Thou shalt eate freely of euery tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and euill, thou shalt not eate of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof,* 1.671 thou shalt die the death. And againe in ano∣ther place, after that he had pronounced the earth cursed for A∣dams sinne, he vttered these words; For out of it wast thou ta∣ken, because thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou returne. By which wordes it appeareth,* 1.672 that if hee had not transgressed, he should not haue died.* 1.673 S. Austen confirmeth the same in these wordes; Quapropter fatendum est primos homines ita fuisse in∣stitutos,

vt si non peccassent, nullum mortis experirentur genus. Wherefore wee must confesse that our first parentes were so created, that vnlesse they had sinned,* 1.674 they shoulde haue felt no kinde of death, (neither of soule nor of body.) Death (saith S. Bernard) shoulde neuer haue followed, if sinne had not gone be∣fore. S. Chrysostome gathereth this conclusion, out of the ex∣presse text of Genesis. These are his wordes; Factus enim est mortalis propter praeuaricationem, vt ex hoc mandato & his quae sequuta sunt, claret. Sequitur, ita{que} ante praeuaricationem immortales erant, alioqui post cibum non hoc sup••licij loco im∣posuisset. For he became mortall, by reason of transgression, as is euident by this commandement, and that which followeth after. Therefore they were immortal before the transgression; otherwise after the eating thereof, this punishment should not haue been imposed vpon them. He confirmeth the same in ano∣ther place, where he writeth thus; Cum Adam peccasset, corpus illius confestim mortale ac passibile factum est, plurimos{que} re∣cepit naturales defectus. So soone as Adam had sinned,* 1.675 his bo∣die forthwith became mortall and passible, and receiued many natural defects. That Adam might haue liued without al kind of sin, is likewise manifest by y^e scripture,* 1.676 which saith that God made man righteous, or right. His rectitude consisted in this, that his reason was subiect to God, his inferiour powers to his superiour, his body to his soule. There was no rebellion to be found, in any part of the whole man. For otherwise it would follow hereupon, y^t God were vniust; which yet to auouch, were y^e greatest blasphemie in the world. The reason is euident,* 1.677 be∣cause if it had not been in Adams power to haue auoided al sin▪ God should haue charged him with an impossibilitie, and with∣all haue condemned him for not performing the same.* 1.678 But our Lord is a iust iudge, as witnesseth his apostle.

This whole processe▪* 1.679 S. Austen sheweth both pithily & brief∣ly, in these right golden wordes; Posteaquam praecepti facta est transgressio, confestim gratia deserente diuina, de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt. Senserunt enim nouum mot••m ino∣bedientis carnis suae, tanquam reciprocam poenam inobedientiae suae; & quia superiorem Dominum suo arbitrio deserue∣rat, inferiorem famulum ad suum arbitrium non tenebat:

non omnino habebat subditam carnem sicut semper habere potu∣isset▪ si Deo subdita ipsa mansisset. After that Gods lawe was transgressed, Gods grace did incontinently forsake them, and they beholding their owne nakednesse were confounded. For they felt a new motion in their disobedient flesh, a punishment correspondent to their disobedient heartes. And because he vo∣luntarily disobeied his superiour Lord, hee coulde not haue his inferiour seruaunt, subiect to his word. Neither was his flesh in subiection, as he might haue had it for euer, if it had re∣mained obedient to Gods lawes.

The condition of mans free will, from the creation of the protoplaste Adam, vntil our regeneration; Christ himselfe see∣meth to set down most liuely,* 1.680 in that parable which he propoun∣ded to the lawyer. A certaine man (saith Christ) went downe from Hierusalem to Iericho, and fell among theeues, who rob∣bed him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, lea∣uing him halfe dead. Which is to say allegorically (as y^e fathers write,) that mankinde went out from the paradise of peace, to the mutabilitie of misery, & fell among the powers of darknes, who robbed him of his supernatural gifts of innocency and im∣mortalitie, wounded him in his naturall giftes, of will and reason, and departed leauing him halfe dead; that is, dead in respect of Gods fauour, though liuing to the eyes of the world. Semiuiuus (inquit Augustinus) habet vitalem motum, id est, li∣berum arbitrium vulneratū,* 1.681 quod ad aeternam quam perdiderat vitam non sufficiebat. Et ideo iacebat, quia vires ei propriae ad surgendum non sufficiebant, vt ad sanandum medicum .i. deum requireret. In that he was halfe aliue, (saith S. Austen) he had vitall motion; that is, free will so wounded, as it could not re∣turne to eternall life, which it had lost. And therefore did he lie; because he wanted proper strength to seeke God, the phisition that could cure his maladie. Ludolphus alluding to mans crea∣tion,* 1.682 setteth downe this matter verie finely in these wordes; Fecerat Deus hominem ad imaginem suam secundum rationem, ad similitudinem secundum dilectionē, vt per vtrum{que} Deo adhae∣reret, & in haerendo beatus esset. Sed diabolus humanae beatitu∣dini inuidens, contra duo bona praedicta duo homini in originali intulit praecipua mala. In eo namque quod factus erat ad ima∣ginem

Dei secundum rationem, vulnerauit eum per ignoran∣tiam boni; in eo verò quod factus est ad similitudinem Dei se∣cundum dilectionem, vulnerauit eum per concupiscentiam mali. God made man after his own image according to reason, after his owne similitude according to loue; that by them both hee might adhere to God, and by adhering to him attaine eternall beatitude. But the deuill enuying mans felicitie,* 1.683 bestowed on him in steede of these two blessings, the double mischiefe of ori∣ginall sinne. For in that man was made after Gods image in reason, he wounded him with the ignorance of good▪ and in that he was made after his similitude in loue, he wounded him with the concupiscence of euill.

Al this is liuely comprehended in the essence, nature and de∣finition of free will, which after Saint Austen is this,* 1.684 Liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis & voluntatis, qua bonum eligi∣tur gratia assistente; malum eâ desistente: Free will is the fa∣cultie of reason and will, by which good is chosen, when grace is present; and euill, when grace is wanting.* 1.685 For this cause saith the apostle, that we are not able to think any good thought of our selues, as of our selues;* 1.686 neither yet to say that Iesus is the Lord, but in the holy ghost.* 1.687 For it is God (saith he) that worketh in vs, both to do wel, and to wil wel. This verity was defined aboue a thousand and one hundred yeers ago, by the an∣cient, holy, and learned councel of Aransica, in these words, Haeretico fallitur spiritu non intelligens vocem Dei,* 1.688 dicentis in Euangelio; Sine me nihil potestis facere; whosoeuer (saieth the holy synode) thinketh he can do any act which pleaseth god, or perteineth to eternal life▪ by force of his free will, that man is deceiued with an heretical spirit, not vnderstanding the voice of god whē he saith in his gospel,* 1.689 Without me ye can do nothing (that is good.) Out of this discourse, two things are cleare & euidēt; the one, that our first parent Adam before his fal, might by force of his free-wil holpen with supernaturall grace, make free election aswel of good as of euil, & withal put that his free choise in execution: thother, that y^e posterity of Adam hath free wil to nothing saue to sin only, vntill the time of regeneration.

The first obiection.

There is no consultation, as saith the Philosopher,* 1.690 but of

things which are in our owne power; and yet doth euery one vse consultations, in those things which he goeth about. A∣gaine, there must be some immediate cause of euery act, and that can not be God, because God is not the cause of any euill. Neither can the cause thereof be ascribed either to nature, or to destinie, or to fortune, because humane actions are variable, and with the intention of the doer. Therefore the best course that can be taken with him that denieth mans freewill after the fall of Adam, is this; to wit, to beate him like a stockfish, vntill he confesse those that beate him to haue free will, either still to beate him, or to cease from beating. For if one should deny the fire to be hote, the best reason against him, were to cast him into an hot ouen or burning furnace.* 1.691 Thus reasoneth Veguerius.

The answere.

I say first, that I willingly graunt, both Papists and other [ 1] reasonable creatures to haue free will, in morall or ciuill acts; neither do I thinke him vnworthy of strokes, that will obsti∣nately deny the same. I say secondly, that mans will is so brought into bondage and thraldome of sinne by the fall of A∣dam, [ 2] as man before his regeneration, can neither do nor once will any one act, which is acceptable in Gods fight. Note well the second obiection, with the answere to the same.

The second obiection.

If free will after the fall of Adam, can not make election as well of good as of euill, then doeth free will vtterly lose it owne nature: for where sinne must needes be chosen of neces∣sitie, there can be no true libertie.

The answere.

I answere, that there be three kinds of libertie, as S. Bernard proueth learnedly, in a peculiar treatise of free will; the first is called,* 1.692 Libertas à coactione, vi, vel necessitate; Libertie from coaction, violence, or necessitie; for all these three are one & the same with him, as euery one that readeth him seriously will perceiue. The second is called, Libertas à peccato; liberty from sinne. The third is called, Libertas à miseria; libertie from mi∣serie. The two latter liberties, from sin & miserie, can not be had in this life: the first was frō the creation, is at this present, and shalbe in al Adams posteritie world without end. For such

is the essence, nature, & formall reason of will, that it cannot be coacted, or inforced. The reason is euident,* 1.693 because it implieth contradictiō, that Wil do any thing, which it is coacted, or en∣forced to do. For when we do any thing violently, we doe it a∣gainst our wil, & not with our wil. If this were not so, the an∣gels in heauen should haue no free wil, contrary to the vniform consent of all learned men. For they haue no more freedome in heauen to sin, then the vnregenerate haue freedome on earth to do wel. Further then this, it would follow hereupon, that the angels in heauen should not be happy. For what happines can it be to wil & do by coaction, that which they wil & do? and yet it is certain, y^t they haue freedom only to do wel: if any wil hold the contrarie, he must likewise hold that angels in heauen may sinne; and consequently, that they may be damned into hel fire.

The third obiection.

If there be no free-wil to do good before regeneration, then must all the morall good deedes of infidels be sin; which to hold is most absurd. For, to serue our soueraigne, to die in the de∣fence of our countrey, to honour our parents, to feede the hun∣grie, to cloathe the naked, and such like, which the infidels do, cannot but be good acts.

The answer.

I answer, that albeit these & like moral deeds be indifferent in their owne nature, glorious in the eyes of the world, and right profitable to others; yet are they meere sins in the doers, & dis∣pleasant in Gods sight. And I prooue it,* 1.694 because that without faith God cannot be pleased, as the apostle witnesseth. Again, the same apostle saith, that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin, and so euery act of the infidel must needs be sin, because it is not of faith. Neither wil it help to say, that if the said acts of infidels be not good, yet are they not euil. For as their great popish ca∣nonist Nauarre, & their Romish cardinal Caietan auouch;* 1.695 eue∣ry act in indiuiduo, must perforce be good or euil: & the reason therof is euident. For euery act must either be referred to some end, or to no end at al: if to no end, then it is an idle act, and wee must render an account for the same: if it be referred to any o∣ther end then to God, it is flat sin; bicause as the apostle saith,* 1.696 whatsoeuer we do, we ought to do it for Gods glory.

S. Austen in his f••urth booke against Iulianus the Pelagi∣an handleth this question so learnedly, and in so ample and per∣spicuous maner, as none that shal reade the booke with iudge∣ment, can stand any longer in doubt thereof. I wil cite one one∣ly periode, for breuitie sake. Thus doth he write; Si gentilis, in∣quis,* 1.697 nudum operuerit, numquid, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est? prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, peccatum est; non quòd per se ipsum factum quod est nudum operire, peccatum est, sed de ta∣li opere non in domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse peccatū. If an infidell, saist thou, shall clothe the naked, is such an act sinne, because it is not of faith? it is doubtlesse sinne, in that it is not of faith; not for that the worke it selfe is sinne of it owne nature, (for to clothe the naked of it owne selfe is not sin,) but to clothe the naked for any other end then for Gods glorie, is sinne indeede. And it is so manifest a sinne, as none but the wicked can denie it to be sin. Thus did Saint Austen answere the Pelagians then, and thus do I answere the papists now, telling them that they are become Semipelagians herein.

The replie.

If this be so indeed, then may an infidel aswel rebel against his prince, as truly serue his prince, aswel betray his country, as die in defence thereof, as wel rob his neighbour, as relieue him, and so in the rest.

The answere.

I answer, that it is farre otherwise, because although they sin in so doing for want of faith in Christ Iesus, yet shal their punishment bee so much more tolerable, by how much their sinnes are the lesse. Neither is this answere inuented of mine owne braine, but long sithence framed by S. Augustine, whose words are these;* 1.698 Sed ad hoc eos in die iudicij cogitationes suae, defendent, vt tolerabilius puniantur; quia naturaliter qua legis sunt vtcunque fecerunt, scriptum habentes in cordibus opus legis hactenus, vt alijs non facerent quod perpeti nol∣lent. Hoc tamen peccantes, quòd homines sine fide non ad eum finem ista opera retulerunt, ad quem referre debuerunt. Mi∣nus enim Fabritius quam Catilina punietur; non quia iste bo∣nus, sed quia ille magis malus; & minus impius quam Cati∣lina

Fabritius, non veras virtutes habendo, sed à veris vir∣tutibus non plurimùm deuiando. But in this their cogitations shall defend them in the day of iudgement, that their punish∣ment may be more tolerable, because they haue done naturally in some sort, those things that pertained to the law;* 1.699 hauing the worke of the lawe so deepely written in their hearts, that they did so to others, as they wished to be doone vnto themselues. Yet they committed this sinne, that they beeing men without faith, did not referre these workes to that end, to which they should haue done. For Fabritius shal be more gently punish∣ed then Catiline; not because he is good, but for that hee is not so bad as Catiline; neither because he hath true vertues, but for that he is not so farre from true vertues as Catiline.

The fourth obiection.

It is cleare by the testimonie of Moses, that Cain had free will aswell to good as to euill;* 1.700 and that both after the fall of A∣dam, and before his regeneration: for there is it expresly saide, that he shal rule ouer his sinne. Therefore though freewil were wounded by y^e fal of Adam, yet did it abide stil in his posterity.

The answer.

I say first, that the text in the originall speaketh of that rule, [ 1] which Cain had ouer his brother, not ouer sinne. For these are the words in the Hebrew text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and thou shalt beare rule ouer him, (not ouer sin:) for in the Hebrew the word sin (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is the feminine gender, and the pronounes which should be answerable therunto, are the masculine, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I say secondly, that their famous linguist A∣rias [ 2] Montpunc; translateth it, (in eum, not in illud; ouer him, not o∣uer it) because the varietie of the gender in the Hebrew would not beare it. I say thirdly, that S. Chrysostome interpreteth this portion of scripture, not of freewil, but of that dominion which [ 3] Cain being the elder brother and first begotten, had ouer his yonger brother Abel in respect of his birthright: these are his wordes; Nam hoc de fratris subiectione accipiendum est. In∣fra; Mihi enim videtur de fratre esse dictum.* 1.701 For this must be vnderstoode of the subiection of his brother: for I iudge it to be spoken of his brother. I say fourthly, that howsoeuer this [ 4]

place of scripture be vnderstoode, it will no way make for the papists. For first, the wicked haue free-will from coaction. Secondly, they haue free-wil in morall and ciuill acts. Third∣ly, among many sinnes, they may make free choise of one; on∣ly this freedome wanteth, that they can neuer make election of good, vntill they be regenerate by Gods holy spirit.

The fift obiection.

If we haue not free-will to do well, then do we sinne of ne∣cessitie; and consequently God is vniust, who punisheth vs for that which we cannot auoide.

The answer.

I say first, that God is not vniust, though he punish vs for [ 1] that which we cannot auoide: for infants cannot auoide origi∣nal sinne; and yet may they iustly be damned for the same. No [ 2] Papist can or will this denie. I say secondly with saint Au∣sten, that euerie sinne (which is not poena peccati) is so volun∣tarie, [ 3] as if it be not voluntarie, it is no sinne at all. I say third∣ly, that it is our owne fault and not Gods, that we can doe no good, but sinne. And because the necessitie of sinning c••me by our selues, who all sinned voluntarily in our first parent A∣dam, we are iustly punished in him, and for his disobedience: for he receiued grace vpon this condition, that if he kept it and sinned not, we should all be partakers thereof; but if he lost it by disobedience, al his posteritie should loose it with him, and be iustly punished for the same.

The reply.

If this be so, our will may rather be called bond-will then free-wil; because al the freedome we haue, is to go to the deuil.

The answer.

[ 1] I say first, that our will before our regeneration, may right∣ly be termed the wil of bondage, and not the wil of freedom. I [ 2] say secondly, that it is stil free in sundry respects, & that I wil not contend for the name, so the trueth be granted in the thing.

The second conclusion.

There is nothing in man by which hee may bee iustified, or which can any way further his iustificatiō. The ancient council of Aransica proueth this conclusion effectually. These are the wordes;* 1.702 Natura humana, etiamsi in illa integritate in qua est

condita permaneret, nullo modo seipsam creatore suo non adiu∣uante seruaret. Ʋnde, cùm sine gratia Dei salutem non possit cu∣stod••re quam accepit, quomodo sine Dei gratia poterit reparare quod perdidit? Man, although he had continued in that integri∣ty in which he was created, yet could he not haue attained sal∣uation, without the help of his creator. Wherefore since man without grace, could not retaine that felicity which he had once receiued; how can he without grace, repaire that which hee hath lost? In these words we see cleerely, that this holy council con∣demnes morall preparatiues, & merites de congruo, to which y^e papists trust so much. The whole scope of the councill is no∣thing else, but onely and soly to perswade man, that he cannot so much as to thinke one good thought, much lesse do any good act, which may any way further his iustification.* 1.703 And in the 7. canon, it doeth precisely condemne that actiue concurrence of freewil, which our papists in the late council of Trent, require of necessitie to mans iustification.

S. Austen as in al other things, so in this matter vseth a large & lerned discourse in his epistle against Vitalis:* 1.704 in which among many other excellent sentences, I finde these finely contriued words; Quapropter vt in Deū credamus, & piè viuam{us}, nō volē∣tis ne{que} currentis▪ sed miserentis est Dei; non quia velle non debe∣mus & currere, sed quia ipse in nobis & velle operatur & cur∣rere Ʋnde & ipse D. Iesus credentes à non credentibus .i. ab irae vasis vasa misericordiae discernēs, nemo inquit, venit ad me, nisi ei datum fuerit à patre meo. Wherfore that we beleeue in him and liue godly, it is neither in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in god that sheweth mercie; not because we are not bound to will & run, but because he worketh in vs both to wil & to run. Whereupon our Lord Iesus seuering beleeuers from infidels, that is, the vessels of mercy frō y^e vessels of wrath, saith that none can come to him,* 1.705 but he to whom it is giuen of his fa∣ther. Christ himself telles vs, that we are vnprofitable seruāts, euen when we haue done the best we can. And yet doubtles wee should be right profitable, if we could yeeld anie helpe at all to our iustification. And holy Moses saith,* 1.706 that the imaginations of our hearts are euill continually: But sinne and corruption can be no meane to worke mans iustification. Wisely therefore

saith the Apostle, that it is God which worketh in vs, both the will and the deede,* 1.707 euen of his good pleasure (not for any me∣rite or dispositiō which he findeth in our selues.) Again in ano∣ther place;* 1.708 not that we are sufficient of our selues, to think any thing as of our selues, but our sufficiency is of God. Again; the natural man perceiueth not y^e things of y^e spirit of God,* 1.709 for they are foolishnes vnto him; neither can he know them, bicause they are spiritually discerned.* 1.710 Again; the wisdome of the flesh is en∣mitie against God, for it is not subiect to the law of God, nei∣ther indeed can be. And Christ himself saith; No man can come to me, except my father draw him. Againe in an other place; Without me can ye doe nothing.* 1.711 By which testimonies it is clear,* 1.712 y^t man before he be regenerate, hath not power, force, effi∣cacy, or faculty to do good, or once to cōsent to any spiritual act.

The third conclusion.

The meritorious cause as wel of saluation as of iustification, is Christ Iesus and none els. This conclusion wilbe manifest, if we seriously reuolue in our minds the wonderful mystery of mans redemption. In which kind of holy meditation, whosoe∣uer shal deuoutly exercise himselfe; that man doubtlesse wil e∣spie with facilitie, these foure most excellent attributes of our most sweete redeemer; to wit, his iustice, his mercie, his wise∣dome, his loue. For first, as the worthines of the person increa∣seth, so doth also the offence against the saide person commit∣ted. [ 1] Wherupon it commeth, that a reprochful word spoken a∣gainst a meane priuate person, is in respect a small offence; when it is spoken against a magistrate,* 1.713 it is great••r; when a∣gainst our soueraigne, the greatest of all: and consequently, when we offend God, whose person is of infinite worthienes, our offence must needes be infinite, howsoeuer our late papists flatter themselues in their venials; and so man vncapable of e∣uerie infinite action, cannot possibly yeeld any condigne com∣pensation: and yet god of his iustice cannot pardon sin, without condigne compensatiō for the same. Behold here Gods iustice. [ 2] Secondly, in rigor of iustice the partie that offendeth, is bound to make satisfaction for the fault,* 1.714 neither is the partie offended bound to accept the satisfaction of any other: and conseqently God was not bound to accept his sonnes satisfaction for our

sinnes, though it were most sufficient, and of infinite dignitie. In this Gods mercie shewed it selfe. Thirdly, on the one [ 3] side pure God could not satisfie,* 1.715 though he were of infinit dig∣nitie, because pure God is impassible; on the other side, pure man was not able, because euerie his action was insufficient, as of which no one amongst al could be infinite; God therefore appointed his onely sonne to be incarnate, to ioyne humanitie with diuinity in hypostatical vnion, and so to make attonement for our sinnes. For as man hee was passible, and as God he was able to giue infinite dignitie to his passion. Wherein we may beholde Gods diuine wisedome. Fourthly, God seeing [ 4] man in the chaines, and bondage,* 1.716 and thraldome of the deuill through sin, and hauing tender compassion of him in such his distresse, sent his owne deare sonne to set him at libertie again; and this he did of meere loue, without all merits and deserts of man.* 1.717 For (as Christ himselfe saith) God so loued the world that he gaue his onely begotten sonne, that whosoeuer belee∣ueth in him should not perish, but haue life euerlasting.

All (saith the apostle) haue sinned,* 1.718 and are depriued of the glorie of God, and are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus. Againe in another place,* 1.719 As by the offence of one, the fault came on al men to condem∣nation, so by the iustifying of one, the benefit abounded to∣warde all men to the iustification of life. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. This is the stone (saith Saint Peter) which the builders refused,* 1.720 which is become the head of the corner; neither is there saluation in any other: for among men there is giuen none other name vnder heauen, whereby wee must be saued. Wee haue an aduocate with the father (saith Saint Iohn) euen Iesus Christ the iust,* 1.721 and he is the reconciliation for our sinnes. Christ redeemed vs (saith Saint Paul,) from the curse of the lawe,* 1.722 while hee was made a curse for vs. Againe in another place, In whome wee haue redemption through his bloud, that is,* 1.723 the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. Againe, Who did by himselfe purge our sinnes,* 1.724 and sitteth on the right hand of maiestie on high. Againe, For he hath made him to be sinne for vs, that knew no sinne,* 1.725 that we

should be made the righteousnes of God in him.* 1.726 These (saith S. Iohn) are they which came from great tribulatiō, & washed their stoales, and made them white in the bloud of the Lambe. Again in another place; The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vs from all sin.* 1.727 I, euen I am hee (saith God by his Prophet) that blotteth out thine infirmities (not for thy deserts,* 1.728 but) for mine owne sake. Againe in another place; He was wounded for our iniquities, hee was torne in peeces for our offences. S. Austen shal conclude this point, who writeth in this maner. Dominus noster Iesus Christus mori venit,* 1.729 peccare non venit, communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam, & culpam soluit & poenam. Our Lord came to die, he came not to sin; communica∣ting paine with vs without sinne, he loosed both sinne, and the paine of sinne.

The fourth conclusion.

The mercie of God is the efficient cause of mans iustificati∣on, and Gods glorie the finall cause of the same. Of the former speaketh S. Paul when he saith;* 1.730 Not by the works of righte∣ousnesse which we haue done, but according to his mercie hath he saued vs, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy ghost. Againe in another place, the same Apostle saith;* 1.731 that al haue sinned, & are freely iustified by his grace. A∣gaine he saith; Which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead.* 1.732 And S. Iohn saith, that God of his meere mercy and loue gaue his only son for the redemption of the world.* 1.733 Of the latter speaketh the apostle when he saith, that God hath made vs accepted in his beloued, to the praise of his glory. Again in another place; whether therfore ye eate or drink, or whatsoeuer ye do, do all to the glory of God; As if he had said, ye must referre al your thoughts, words, and workes, to Gods glorie, because ye were created to that end. The prophet also saith;* 1.734 I, euen I am he that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake, & wil not remember thy sins. Againe in an other place; Surely I wil not giue my glory to any other. But doubtlesse if God shoulde iustifie man for any other end then for his owne glory, it would follow thereupon that his glorie were giuen to another.* 1.735 Yet as Salomon saith, God hath made

al things for his own sake, yea euen y^e wicked for y^e day of euil.

The formall cause of mans iustification, is not mans owne inherent iustice, but the iustice & righteousnes of Christ Iesus. This conclusion containeth the maine point of a mighty con∣trouersie betweene the papists & vs: for which respect, I wish the reader to marke attentiuely my discourse. The late councel holden at Trent, setteth downe the opinion of the papists, in these words; Demū vnica formalis causa est iustiti•• dei, nō qua ipse iustus est, sed qua nos iustos facit. To conclude,* 1.736 the onely formal cause is the iustice of God, not that with which himself is iust, but with which he maketh vs iust. This decree is quite contrarie to my conclusion, & they learned it of Aquinas their angelicall doctour, whose direction they followe in all theolo∣gicall questions. Thus doth Aquinas write;* 1.737 Gratia non dici∣tur facere gratum effectiuè, sed formaliter; quia per hanc homo iustificatur, & dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus secundum il∣lud Colos. 1. vers. 12. dignos nos fecit in partem sortis fancto∣rum in lumine. Grace doth not make one acceptable effectiuely, but formally, because man is iustified by grace, and is made worthie to be accepted of god, according to that which the ap••∣stle saith, He hath made vs worthie of the fellowship of saints in light. Thus writeth Aquinas; whose opinion being once confuted, al other papists shalbe confuted in him. I therfore say first, that Aquinas was deceiued with the popish vulgar latin translation called vulgata editio, which for al that,* 1.738 the late dis∣holy [ 1] synode of Trent hath wonderfully magnified, & extolled aboue the starrie skies. For where their vulgata editio hath (worthie) there the greeke and original hath (meete or fit) these are the very words of the original;* 1.739 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Giuing thanks to god euen the father, who hath made vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.

I say secondly, that since his foundation was a false transla∣tion, [ 2] his conclusion inferred thereupon, must of necessitie bee false also. And therefore wee may not reade as Aquinas did, (who hath made vs worthie,* 1.740 but) who hath made vs meete or fitte for the fellowshippe of Saintes;) and so their owne lin∣quist Arias Montanus doth interpret it, to their confusion.

And because the verie life of this question standeth wholly in this, if there be any forme or qualitie inherent in man, by which hee is worthy of glory and eternall life; I will prooue pithily and succinctly, that man neither hath in him, nor can haue any such qualitie at all; but that the formall cause of mans iustifica∣tion is in Christ Iesus, not in himselfe.

The first argument.

* 1.741No infinite accident can be in any finite subiect; but the grace of iustification is infinite, Ergo it cannot be in man a finite sub∣iect. The argument is in forme, the proposition is graunted of all, as well Philosophers as Diuines; and the assumtion is manifest, because the transgression was infinite, as is prooued in the third conclusion.

The second argument.

* 1.742Being iustified freely by his grace (saith the Apostle;) tho∣rough redemption which is in Christ Iesus. Where we must [ 1] obserue first,* 1.743 y^t when the apostle saith (freely,) hee doth exclude [ 2] all workes, and all qualities in man. We must obserue second∣ly, that when he saith (by his grace,) he giueth vs to vnderstand, that the grace of iustification is in Christ, and not in our selues. For otherwise he would haue termed it our grace, and not his grace; because that which is inherent in our selues, is properly [ 3] ours. We must obserue thirdly, that when hee concludeth the period thus; (which is in Christ Iesus,) the word (which) hath no lesse relation to grace then to redemption, and so thone must be in Christ aswel as the other.

The 3. argument.

* 1.744Being therfore iustified by faith, we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ,* 1.745 through whom we haue ac∣cesse by faith into this grace in which wee stand. In which [ 1] wordes of the Apostle, wee are taught three thinges. First, [ 2] that our iustification is by faith. Secondly, that our iustifica∣tion [ 3] giueth vs peace with God. Thirdly, that by faith we haue accesse to the grace of iustification; and consequently, that this grace of iustification is not in our selues. For vnproperly are wee saide to haue accesse, to a thing inherent in our selues.

The 4. argument.

Not hauing mine owne righteousnesse, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ,* 1.746 euen the righte∣ousnesse which is of God through faith. In which wordes the Apostle teacheth vs two thinges; First, that the formal cause [ 1] of our iustification is not our owne, in these wordes, (not ha∣uing mine owne righteousnesse;) for if our iustice or righteous∣nesse were inherent in our selues, it should be our owne. Se∣condly, that our iustice is through faith, and in faith; and con∣sequently, [ 2] that the formall iustice of the papists, is not that true christian iustice whereof Saint Paul speaketh: for they say, that charitie which is the chiefest part of their formall inherent iu∣stice, is neither through faith, nor in faith, but aboue faith, and the forme of faith.

The fift argument.

He that knewe no sinne, suffered the paine due for sinne for our sakes, that wee might be made the iustice of God in him.* 1.747 In which wordes the apostle teacheth vs two thinges; First,* 1.748 that Christ died for our iustification. Secondly, that this iustifi∣cation is the application of the iustice of God in Christ. But doubtlesse the iustice of God, cannot be our inherent iustice. [ 1] For first, Gods iustice is infinite, but ours is finite. Secondly, [ 2] Gods iustice is perfite, but ours is vnperfit. Thirdly, Gods [ 3] iustice is absolute, but ours is relatiue.

The 6. argument.

For they being ignorant of the righteousnesse of God,* 1.749 and going about to stablishe their owne righteousnesse, haue not submitted themselues to the righteousnesse of God.* 1.750 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse, vnto euery one that be∣leeueth. In these wordes of the apostle, wee are taught two thinges; First, that to ascribe anie righteousnesse to our selues, [ 1] is flatly to fall from the iustice of God. Which certes could not be so, if y^t iustice by which we are iustified, were inherent in our selues. Againe, that Christes righteousnesse is applied to euery [ 2] one by faith. Which thing shalbe yet more plaine, by the next conclusion.

The 5. conclusion.

Man is iustified by sole and only faith; that is to say, faith

onely is the instrument, by which man applieth to himselfe, the righteousnesse of God in Christ Iesus.* 1.751 This conclusion con∣taineth three thinges; First, that Gods righteousnesse is that [ 1] iustice which we present for our iustification. Secondly, that it is ours for the merites of Christ Iesus. Thirdly, that we ap∣prehend [ 2] and take hold vpon it, by faith only; and so we haue the [ 3] explication, howe sole faith doth iustifie. Which because the papistes so bitterly impugne, I will prooue it both by y^e scrip∣tures and the fathers. If Abraham (saith S. Paule) were iu∣stified by works,* 1.752 he hath wherin to reioyce, but not with God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse. Thus saith the Apo∣stle. [ 1] Out of which wordes I note first, that workes did not iu∣stifie [ 2] Abraham before God. I note secondly, that that iustice by which man standeth cleere before God, is only imputatiue, and not really inherent in himselfe. Which imputatiue iustice, the Apostle doth often inculcate in this chapter, the fourth to the Romaines. I note thirdly, that faith is counted our righ∣teousnesse. [ 3] Which the apostle expresseth more liuely in the fift verse; But to him that worketh not (saith hee) but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly,* 1.753 his faith is counted for righte∣ousnesse. Loe, not the worker, but the beleeuer is iustified, and that by imputation.

The same apostle after a long discourse, to prooue that a man is iustified by faith onely,* 1.754 in another place addeth these words; We therfore think y^t a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the law. Loe, the holy apostle, after a long dispu∣tation, which is implied in the worde (therefore,) concludeth, that we are iustified by faith without works. As if he had said; sole faith, only faith, or faith without works doth iustifie, albeit the papistes cannot, or will not it see. This whole processe is confirmed, by the vniforme testimonies of the auncient fathers, who all ascribe our iustification to sole faith.

S. Ambrose hath these wordes, Iustificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, ne{que} vicena reddentes, sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei.* 1.755 They are iustified freely, because they neither doing any worke, nor making any compensation, are iustified by sole faith through the grace of God. The like sayinges hee hath in

sundry other places. S. Chrysostome hath these wordes; Ʋnum hoc tantummodo donum Deo obtulimus,* 1.756 quod futura nobis pro∣mittenti credimus, atque hac solum via seruati sumus. This one only gift do we present to God, that we beleeue him when he promiseth vs future giftes, and by this only way are we sa∣ued. Againe in another place he writeth thus; Aut fidem dicit, decretum illam vocans. Ex sola quippe fide nos saluauit.* 1.757 Or hee meaneth faith, calling it the decree. For by only faith hath he sa∣ued vs.

S. Hilarie hath these wordes; Mouet scribas remissum ab homine peccatum;* 1.758 hominem enim tantum in Iesu Christo contue∣bantur, & remissum ab eo quod lex laxare non poterat. Fides enim sola iustificat. It vexeth the Scribes, that man forgiueth sinnes, for they onely considered Christ Iesus to be man, and that he forgaue that which the law could not doe. For sole faith doth iustifie.

S. Basill hath these words;* 1.759 Nam ea demum perfecta & om∣nimodae gloriatio est in Deo, quando ne{que} propter suam ipsius quis extollitur iustitiam, sed agnoscit se quidem verae destitui iu∣stitia, verùm sola in Christum fide iustificatum esse.

For that is the perfite ioy & al maner of comfort we haue in God, when no man is puffed vp by reason of his owne righte∣ousnesse, but acknowledgeth himselfe to be destitute of true iu∣stice in deed, and seeketh to be iustified by sole faith in Christ.

Origen writeth in this maner; Dicit sufficere solius fidei iu∣stificationem, ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur,* 1.760 etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum.

He saith, that the iustification of sole faith is sufficient, so as a man may be iustified, if he only beleeue, although hee doe no workes at all. And the same Origen prooueth in the same place, by a long and learned discourse; that wee are iustified by sole faith, and not by workes.

S. Austen is plaine in this point, who writeth in this maner, Opus autem fidei ipsa dilectio est: And charitie it selfe is the worke of faith. What plainer testimonie can be had? what pa∣pist can inuent any solution for the same? who but mad men will not yeeld thereunto? August. in Epist. Ioann. tract. 10. in initio.

The 6. conclusion.

The good works of y^e regenerate, do neither merite grace in this life, nor glory in the world to come. This conclusion is a∣gainst a graund and mightie article in popishe doctrine, but I will prooue it by strong and irrefragable reasons.

S. Paul writeth to the Romaines, in these wordes; the af∣flictions of this present time are not worthy of the glory,* 1.761 which shalbe shewed vnto vs. The workes of the regenerate (saith S. Paul, as ye see) are not worthy of heauen. They cannot therefore (say I) merite heauen, because (as the papists them∣selues doe graunt) to merite heauen, and to be worthy of hea∣uen, is all one; the difference is onely in wordes, not in sense.

The papists perceiuing the force of this argument, vse this seely euasion:* 1.762 although (say they) the actions of man be not worthie of heauen, neither merite grace, as they proceed from mans free-will; yet are they worthie of heauen and meritori∣ous, as they proceede from the holy ghost. But this is a friuo∣lous, childish, and miserable shift, onely inuented by the sugge∣stion [ 1] of Satan, to seduce simple soules. For first, our workes [ 2] are only ours, as they proceed of, and from our selues. Second∣ly, when the holy ghost and man worke both one and the same work, that which the holy Ghost doth, can no more be deemed mans act, then that which man doth, can be deemed Gods act; & yet so it is, that y^t which man doth cannot be deemed Gods; Ergo, neither that which God doth, can be deemed mans. The assumption, wherein resteth the difficultie if there be any at all, is manifest by mans sinfull actions. For the most cruell act that can be imagined, is not done without the concourse of the holy ghost, as all learned papistes doe, and must confesse. Ne∣uerthelesse mans sinfull actes are so farre from being Gods actes, as the deformities and irregularities thereof be onely mans, and neuer Gods; and yet doth God concurre more effec∣tually to those wicked acts, in that he is the principall agent of the real and positiue entities thereof, then man doth or can con∣curre to any act of Gods, that is, to any good act himselfe doth. Note well, for God is the creator of the diuell, as he is an an∣gel, but not as hee is such an aungell: and euen so is God the

authour of mans acts, as they be acts, but not as such acts. This place of the Apostle is handled more at large, in my book of Motiues.

I my self (saith the Apostle) in my mind serue the law of god,* 1.763 but in my flesh the law of sin. Out of which words I note first, that Saint Paul speaketh of the regenerate throughout this whole chapter, because hee nameth himselfe, who was Gods chosen and elect vessel. For which respect and the like expressed in this seauenth chapter to the Romaines, S. Austen changed his opinion,* 1.764 and granted the apostle to speake here of the rege∣nerate. I note secondly, that the elect & regenerate do serue the law of sinne. I note thirdly, that the best liuers are so far from meriting grace of glorie; that they deserue (in rigour of iustice) eternal death, because death is the rewarde of sinne. Which for that Saint Augustine coulde not well digest at the first,* 1.765 he thoght that S. Pauls words in this chapter, were to be vn∣derstoode of the reprobate, and not of the elect and godly sort; but after he had pondered the text deeply, he altered his opini∣on. This is confirmed in these words of the selfe same chapter,* 1.766 but I see another law in my mēbers, rebelling against the law of my mind, leading me captiue vnto the law of sin, which is in my members. By these words of Paul it is euident, that albe∣it he were the childe of God, yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight, but rather in rigor of iustice prouoke his heauy displeasure against him. For where or what could be his me∣rite, who was prisoner to the law of sinne?

Againe it is confirmed in these words;* 1.767 For I doe not the good thing which I would, but the euill which I would not, that doe I. Thus sai••h saint Paul, and doubtlesse since hee did the euill which he would not, he sinned though he were regene∣rate; and because he sinned he was worthie of condemnation, for that death is the stipend of sinne.

Againe it is confirmed in these words; For the law is spiri∣tuall, but I am carnal sould vnder sinne.* 1.768 Thus saith S. Paul of himselfe, and yet is it true, that one vnder sin can merit no∣thing, saue hel fire and eternal paine.

Againe it is confirmed in these words; Nowe if I do that I would not, it is no more I that doe it, but the sinne that dwel∣leth

in mee.* 1.769 Thus saith Saint Paul of himselfe, and yet be∣cause sin abode in him, and did that that was offensiue in gods sight, he could neither merite grace nor eternal life, as is alrea∣dy proued.* 1.770 Further then this, no man liueth without sinne, (as the papists grant) and yet is euerie sinne mortall, as I haue prooued elsewhere.

The first obiection.

Saint Paul speaketh of originall concupiscence, which re∣maineth euen in the regenerate after baptisme, but is no sinne at all. For he onely calleth it sinne, because it prouoketh a man to sin, as a mans writing is called his hand, for that it is writ∣ten with his hand: which exposition S. Austen approueth in sundrie places of his works.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that to say against the flat text of scripture with∣out [ 2] scripture, is no reason at all. I say secondly, that S. Paul doth not onely call concupiscence sin, but he proueth it by ma∣ny reasons. For first, it striueth against the law of the minde. Againe, it leadeth one captiue into the law of sinne: thirdly, it doth that which is not good, but euil. I say thirdly, that Saint [ 3] Austen doth vndoubtedly iudge it to be sin; neither shal any pa∣pist in the world, euer be able to proue the contrarie, howsoeuer they bare the world in hand. I wil onely alleage a few places out of S. Austen, & make effectuall application of the same; to which when anie either Rhemist or Romist shall answere suf∣ficiently, I promise to become his bondman.

The first place of Austen.

Concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiri∣tus,* 1.771 & peccatum est▪ quia inest illi inobedientia contra domina∣tum mentis; & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis ino∣bedientis; & causa peccata est, defectione consentientis, vel contagione nascentis. The concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit striueth, is sinne, because it is disobedient against the dominion of the mind; and it is the punishmēt of sin, bicause it is inflicted for the deserts of disobedient (Adam;) and it is the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consen∣teth, or by the contagion of the child that is borne. Thus saith S. Austen. In which words he expresseth three things precisely;

first, that concupiscence in the regenerate is the paine or pu∣nishment [ 1] of sinne; secondly, that it is the cause of sinne; thirdly, [ 2] that it is sin it selfe: which three he doth not only distinguish, [ 3] but withall hee yeeldeth seueral reasons for the same. And ther∣fore most impudent are the papists, who auouch with open mouthes that saint Austen onely calleth it sin, because it is the cause of sinne.

The second place of Saint Austen

Neque enim nulla est iniquitas,* 1.772 cum in vno homine vel supe∣riora inferioribus tur piter seruiunt; vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur, etiamsi vincere non sinantur. For it is some iniquitie, when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour; or the inferiour parts stubborn∣ly striue against the superiour, although they be not suffered to preuaile. Thus saith S. Austen: whose words are so plaine, as the papists can not possibly inuent any euasion at all. For hee saith in expresse tearmes, that the rebellion, which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne, euen when it is resisted and can∣not preuaile: at which time and in which respect, the papists wil haue it to be merite and no sinne at all.

The third place of Saint Austen.

Ʋirtus est charitas, qua id quod diligendum est diligitur;* 1.773 haec in alijs maior, in alijs minor, in alijs nulla est, plenissima vero quae iam non possit augeri, quamdiu hic homo viuit, est in nemi∣ne; quamdiu autem augeri potest, profecto illud quod minus est quam debet, ex vitio est. Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui faciat bonum, & non peccet.* 1.774 Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis viuens. Propter quod vitium▪ si dixeri∣mus quia peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, & ve∣retas in nobis non est. Propter quodetiam quantumlibet profece∣rimus, necessarium est nobis dicere; dimitte nobis debita nostra, cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta, facta, cogitata, dimissa sint. Charitie is a vertue, with which we loue that that ought to be loued. This in some is more, in other lesse, in others none at all; but the perfect charitie which can not bee increased while a man here liueth, is found in none; so long as it can be increased, that doubtlesse which is lesse then it shoulde bee,

proceedeth of sinne, by reason of which sin, there is not one iust vpon earth, that doth good and sinneth not; by reason of which vice, none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight; by reason of which vice, if we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs;* 1.775 by reason of which sin, how much soeuer we profit, yet must we say of necessitie, Forgiue vs our tres∣passes, euen after that al our thoughts, words and works, are forgiuen in baptisme. Thus saith saint Austen. Out of whose most golden words, I note sundrie things, to the euerlasting [ 1] confusion of all impenitent papists. For first, Saint Austen saith, that no man can haue charity in that perfite degree, which the law requireth. Secondly, that the want thereof proceedeth [ 2] of this concupiscence. Thirdly, that by reason of this concupi∣scence, [ 3] euerie man is a sinner. Fourthly, that by reason therof, [ 4] none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight. Fiftly that by reason [ 5] thereof, whosoeuer saith he hath no sinne, is a flat lyer. Sixtly, [ 6] that how vertuously soeuer we liue, yet must we desire God to forgiue vs our sinnes, by reason of this concupiscence. Sea∣uenthly, [ 7] that wee must thus pray, euen after all sinnes be for∣giuen vs in our baptisme.

The fourth place of Saint Austen.

* 1.776Si in parente baptizato potest & esse, & peccatum non esse, cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est? Adhaec respondetur, dimitti concupiscētiam carnis in baptismo non vt non sit, sed vt in pec∣catum non imputetur. If it be demanded, how concupiscence can be without sinne in the parent that is baptised, and yet be sinne in the childe; I answere that concupiscence is forgiuen in baptisme, yet not so that it remaineth not still, but that it be not imputed for sinne. Thus saith Saint Austen, in which words he sheweth plainely, that concupiscence remaineth as well in the baptised parent, as in the vnbaptised childe; yet with this difference, that it is sinne in the parent, though not for sinne im∣puted; but in the child it is both sinne, and so reputed.

The fift place of Saint Austen.

* 1.777Ideo apostolus non ait facere bonū sibi non adiacere sed perfice∣re. Multum••n, boni facit, qui facit quod scriptū est, postconcu∣piscentias

tuas non eas; sed non perficit, quia non implet quod scriptum est, non concupisces. The Apostle therefore saith not, that he hath not power to do good, but that he can not perfect that which is good. For he doth great good,* 1.778 who doth that which is written, follow not thy lustes; but he doth not per∣fect his well doing, because he fulfilleth not that which is writ∣ten, Thou shalt not lust. Thus saith S. Austen. Out of whose words I note first, that S. Austen speaketh these words of the [ 1] regenerate, for they onely can do good, as is already prooued. I note secondly, that though the regenerate can do good, and [ 2] striue against lust; yet can they not do that good so perfectly, but it is alwayes annexed to sinne, and chayned with it, as with an heauie yokefellow. I note thirdly, (and I wish the [ 3] reader to marke well my words) that the tenth commaunde∣ment (which is,* 1.779 thou shalt not lust) prohibiteth not onely ac∣tuall lust done with consent, but also originall lust without consent; and consequently, that concupiscence remayning in the regenerate, is sinne properly and formally. I prooue it, because S. Paule could not performe this precept, as S. Au∣sten truely and learnedly obserued: and yet concerning actuall consent, S. Paule was free and innocent, as who fought mightely against his concupiscence, and would in no wise yeeld vnto the same. He was therefore guiltie by reason of originall concupiscence, which abode in him against his will.* 1.780 To will is present with me (sayth S. Paule) but I finde no meanes to perfourme that which is good, for I do not the good thing which I would, but the euill which I would not, that do I. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sinne that dwelleth in me. Loe, the holy Apostle confesseth plainely, that he sinneth against his will, and that by reason of originall concupiscence, which remayned in him after Bap∣tisme. S. Austen singeth the same song, and yet our Papists will not haue it sinne: and why? because forsooth, it ouerthro∣weth their holy iustifications, their inherent purities, their condigne merites, their mutuall satisfactions, and their phari∣saicall supererogations. And yet Petrus Lombardus their wor∣thie maister of Sentences (whose booke to this day is publike∣ly read in their schooles of Diuinity) vtterly condemneth their

hereticall doctrine in this point:* 1.781 these are his expresse words.

Secundum animas vero iam redempti sumus ex parte, non ex toto, àculpa, non à poena; nec omninò à culpa: non enim ab ea sic redempti sumus vt non sit, sed vt nō dominetur. But touching our soules we are redeemed in part, not wholy, from the fault, not from the paine,* 1.782 neither wholy from the (sinne or) fault. For we are not so redeemed from it, that it be not (in vs,) but that it rule not (ouer vs.) Thus writeth the venerable popish ma∣ster, our reuerend father Lombarde: out of whose words wee may gather with facility, so much as wil serue our turn against al papists. For first, he saith y^t we are redemed in part, but not in al.* 1.783 Secōdly, that we are not wholy redeemed frō sin. Third∣ly, he telleth vs how and in what maner we be redeemed from sin; to wit, that albeit sin stil remaine in vs, yet hath it not such dominion ouer vs, as it can enforce vs to consent thereunto.

The second obiection.

* 1.784If concupiscence were sinne in the regenerate, it would make them guiltie of eternall death, and yet are they free from all condemnation, as witnesseth the Apostle.

The answer.

I answere that concupiscence as wel as other sinnes, is apt of it owne nature to condemne vs, but God of his mercie doth neither impute it nor other sinnes of humane frailtie vnto the faithfull, for the merits of Christ Iesus.

The first replie.

* 1.785Euery thing (as the Philosophers truely say) hath the deno∣mination of the formalitie thereof; but doubtlesse the formalitie of original sinne is taken away in baptisme; other else in vaine were infants baptised, and so there onely remaineth the mate∣rialitie, as the schooles tearme it, that is, a certaine rebellion and inclination to sinne-ward.

The answere.

I answere, that the formalitie of original sin is of two sorts, or double;* 1.786 to wit, the guilte and the deordination. The former by which the partie that sinneth is bound to paine temporal & eternall, is remitted by grace and baptisme in this life. The latter, which is a certaine disorder and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the mind, wil, and actions of man▪ continueth stil, euen to the last houre.

The second replie.

Naturall things neither make vs worthie of praise nor of dispraise, as the Philosophers all grant; but certes concupi∣scence in man is natural, and so can it not be sinne.

The answere.

I answere that concupiscence as it is naturall indeede, and giuen to man as man in the state of innocencie, is ordinate, a∣greeable to reason, and altogether without sinne: but concupi∣scence as it is connatural to corrupt man, is inordinate, rebel∣lious, against the spirit, and altogether sinful in Gods sight.

The third replie.

S. Austen in one place saith plainely,* 1.787 that originall concupi∣scence is no sinne, vnlesse wee consent vnto it. These are the words, Quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consen∣tientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis? Howe much more is it without sin, in the bodie of him that consenteth not; if it be without sinne, in his body that is a sleepe?

The answere.

I answer, that S. Austen meaneth nothing lesse, then to denie concupiscence to be sin, for otherwise he should be contrarie to himselfe, who affirmeth it to bee sinne in many places of his works, as is alreadie prooued; but hee onely laboureth to per∣swade the reader, that it is neuer imputed to the faithfull, that stoutly striue against it. And that this is the true meaning of S. Austen, I proue it by the iudgement of S. Ambrose,* 1.788 concerning the selfe same matter. Thus doth hee write.

Caro contra spiritum, & contra carnem spiritus concupiscit: ••ec inuenitur in vllo hominum tanta concordia,* 1.789 vt legi mentis lex quae membris est insita non repugnet. Propter quod ex omni∣um sanctorum persona accipitur quod Ioannes apostolus ait; si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, nosipsos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est: cum tamen idem ipse dicat; qui na∣tus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, qoniam semen ipsius in eo ma∣net, & non potest peccare, quoniā ex Deo natus est. Vtrumque er∣go verum est, quia & nemo sine peccato est, in eo quod nemo est fine lege peccati; & qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quia per legem mentis, id est, per charitatem quae Dei semen est, peccatum non facit. Charitas enim operit multitudinē peccatorū.

the flesh lusteth against the spirit, & the spirit against the flesh; neither is there found in any man such concord, but that the lawe (of concupiscence) which is ingrafted in the members, fighteth against the law of the mind. And for that cause Saint Iohns words are taken,* 1.790 as spoken in the person of all saints, If we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs, when for al that; the same apostle saith, He that is borne of God, sinneth not, because his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sinne because he is of God. Therfore both are true, because no man is without sinne, for that no man is without the law of sinne, (that is, concupiscence) and he that is borne of God sinneth not, bicause he sinneth not by the law of his mind, that is, by charitie, which is Gods seede; for charitie couereth [ 1] the multitude of sinnes. Out of these words I note first, that concupiscence moueth rebellion against the spirit, in the holyest [ 2] man vpon earth. I note secondly, that this rebellion of concu∣piscence, is sinne in euerie one, because S. Iohn speaketh of sinne indeede, whose words saint Ambrose applieth heere to concupiscence. I note thirdly, that hee speaketh of originall [ 3] concupiscence, because he speaketh of that concupiscence, which is in the saints, that is, in those that are borne of God. I note fourthly, that the faithfull sinne not, because charitie couereth [ 4] their sins. So then S. Austen meaneth as S. Ambrose doth, that they are without sin, to whom sinne is not imputed. Yea, Aquinas himselfe granteth, (which is to be admired) that the inordinate motion of sensualitie, euen which goeth before the deliberation of reason, is sinne though in a lowe degree. These are his expresse wordes:

Dicendum, quòd illud quod homo facit sine deliberatione ra∣tionis,* 1.791 non perfectè ipse facit, quia nihil operatur ibi id quod est principale in homine; vnde non est perfectè actus humanus, & per consequens non potestesse perfectè actus virtutis vel pec∣cati, sed aliquid imperfectum in genere horum. Vnde talis motus sensualitatis rationem praeueniens est peccatum veniale, quod est quiddam imperfectum in genere peccati.

I answere, that that which man doth without the deliberati∣on of reason, he doth it not perfectly, because that which is the chiefe in man worketh nothing there; wherefore it is not per∣fectly

mans act, and consequently it cannot be perfectly the act of vertue or of sinne, but some imperfect thing in this kinde. Whereupon such a motion of sensuality preuenting reason is a venial sinne, which is a certaine imperfect thing in the nature of sinne.

The fourth replie.

Concupiscence at the most is but a little venial sinne, as S. Thomas Aquinas truely saith; therefore it cannot bring a man to hell, neither debarre him of heauen.

The answere.

I answere, that euerie sin is mortall vndoubtedly, as which is flatly against Gods holy commaundements. For that the transgression of Gods commandements, is a grieuous mortal sinne, no man euer did or will denie;* 1.792 Cursed is euery one (saith the apostle) that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them. Againe in another place,* 1.793 The reward or wage of sinne is death. And S. Iames saith, Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole lawe,* 1.794 and yet faileth in one point, he is guiltie of all. Nowe that euerie sinne aswel great as small is against Gods holy lawe, I prooue sundrie waies. First because the Apostle saith, that al our thoughts, words, [ 1] and works, ought to be referred to the glorie of God;* 1.795 for most certaine it is, that no sinne at al is referred to Gods glorie. For no sin, no, not the least of al is referrible to god;* 1.796 but is of it own nature, repugnant to his glorie. Secondly, because wee must [ 2] yeelde an account to God, for euerie idle word,* 1.797 as Christ him∣selfe telleth vs; and yet (as euerie child can perceiue) God most merciful and most iust, wil neuer lay that to our charge, which is not against his holy law. Thirdly, because the apostle saith [ 3] of sin generally that the punishment thereof is death.* 1.798 Fourth∣ly, because sinne in generall is defined by the fathers, to bee [ 4] the transgression of Gods law;* 1.799 which definition could not bee true, if anie little sinne could stand with his commaundement. Fiftly, because famous popish writers, as Ioannes Gerson, Michael Baius, Almayn, and our owne Bishop of Rochester,* 1.800 [ 5] doe all freely graunt, that euerie sinne is mortall of it owne na∣ture, and deserueth eternall death: their words I haue alleaged

in my booke of Motiues. Sixtly, because Durandus and Iose∣phus Angles,* 1.801 (to whom the Schooles of the papistes this day accord,) doe sharpely impugne Aquinas his doctrine; in that he teacheth Venials, not to be against Gods law.

The 7. conclusion.

Although good works do not iustifie, yet are they pretious in Gods sight,* 1.802 and neuer want their reward. Christ himselfe proo∣ueth this conclusion, when he promiseth that not so much as a cup of colde water giuen in his name, shall passe without re∣ward.* 1.803 And in another place hee saith, That whosoeuer shall leaue house, parents, brethren, wife, or children for his sake, shal receiue much more in this world, and in the world to come, life euerlasting. And in another place Christ telleth vs, that when the sonne of man commeth in his glory, and al his holy angels with him,* 1.804 then will he pronounce them blessed, that haue done the works of charitie to their poore neighbours. God (saith S. Paul,) will reward euery man according to his workes. The Lord rewarded me (saith holy Dauid) according to my righte∣ousnesse;* 1.805 and according to the purenesse of mine handes, he re∣compensed me. Yea, it is a thing so certaine with God, to re∣ward y^e good deeds of his faithful seruants, that the best liuers giue great respect thereunto.* 1.806 Moses (saith S. Paul) esteemed the rebuke of Christ, greater riches then y^e treasures of Egypt; for he had respect to the recompence of the reward. Which re∣ward neuerthelesse proceedeth of Gods meere mercie & boun∣tifull benignitie, without all desertes of man. Which the great papist frier Iohn de Combis wel obserued,* 1.807 whē in his theological Sūme, he wrote in this maner; Deus nos punit citra condignū, remunerat vltra condignum. God punisheth vs lesse then we be worthy, and rewardeth vs farre aboue our deserts.

The first obiection.

* 1.808S. Iohn saith, Qui facit iustitiam iustus est. He that doth iu∣stice, he is iust. Therefore a man becommeth iust, euen by doing of good workes.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that the contrary illation, is more fitly gathered out of Saint Iohns assertion; albeit the papistes thinke this

a bulwarke, for their iustification by good works. For when he saith, he that doth iustice, is iust, it is all one as if he had said, when one doth good works, it is a signe that he is iust, because none can do good works, vnlesse hee be iust. For as a tree can∣not bring forth good fruit, vnlesse it first be good; euen so cannot any man do good works vnles he first be the child of god. The reason is euident, bicause the effect must folow, & not go before the cause. For as saint Austen grauely saith;* 1.809 Opera sequuntur iustificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. Works follow him that is alreadie iustified, but they goe not before him that is to be iustified. I say secondly, that hee that doth iustice, is iust by [ 2] inherent iustice, but imperfectly, as is alreadie prooued.

The second obiection.

Saint Iames saith, that a man is iustified by good works,* 1.810 and not by faith onely; and he proueth it because Abraham was iustified by offering vp his sonne Isaac.

The answere.

I say first, that Abraham was iustified indeede, before he did a∣ny good worke; and I prooue it by Saint Paul,* 1.811 whose words [ 1] are these; For if Abraham were iustified by works, he hath wherein to reioyce, but not with God; for what saith the scrip∣ture? Abraham beleeued God, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse. Nowe to him that worketh, the wages is not counted by fauour, but by debt; but to him that worketh not, but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is counted for righteousnes: euen as Dauid declareth the blessednes of the man, vnto whome God imputeth righteousnesse without works. Out of these words of the apostle I note first, that who∣soeuer [ 1] ascribeth his iustification to works, can haue no ioy with God. I note secondly, that righteousnesse was imputed to A∣braham [ 2] by reason of his faith, not by reason of his works. I note thirdly, that if Abrahams works could haue iustified him, [ 3] his iustification shoulde haue beene of duetie, and not by fa∣uour or grace. I note fourthly, that the vngodly is freely iusti∣fied [ 4] by faith in Iesus Christ without works.

I say secondly, that Abraham offered his son Isaac, not to [ 2] worke his iustification by that fact, but to giue a testimonie

of his faith, and that he was already the childe of God. For as S. Paule saith, that ob••ation was for the triall of Abrahams faith. These are the words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaac when hee was tried,* 1.812 or prooued (for so the Greek word doth significantly expresse.* 1.813) And Moses maketh the matter more plaine, in these wordes; And after these things, God did proue or try Abraham: (where the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to make triall.) And y^e proofe followeth in these wordes;* 1.814 Take nowe thine only sonne Isaac, whom thou louest, and get thee to the land of Moriah, and of∣fer him there for a burnt offering, vpon one of the mountaines, which I will shew thee. Out of which words, with the circum∣stances before and after recorded in the scripture; I gather that Abraham was perfitly iustified, before hee offered his sonne I∣saac. [ 1] For first, God had promised to blesse all nations in his son Isaac,* 1.815 as it is written; Sara thy wife shall beare thee a son in deede, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will esta∣blishe my couenaunt with him for an euerlasting couenaunt, [ 2] and with his seede after him. Again, God appointed that sonne [ 3] to be slaine, in whom the promise was made. Thirdly, the sa∣crifice was the only sonne of Abraham, euen the sonne which he [ 4] loued most tenderly. Fourthly, Abraham himselfe was desig∣ned to be the butcher to his owne sweet childe. Fiftly, it passed [ 5] mans reason, how all nations could be blessed in the child, that was presently to be slaine. All this notwithstanding, Abraham neuer once doubted of Gods promise, but promptly pre∣pared himselfe to execute Gods will. Whereupon I con∣clude, that Abraham was holy and iust in Gods sight, before the oblation of his sonne;* 1.816 otherwise he could neuer haue yeelded thereunto, in such maner and with such alacritie of minde as he did.

I say thirdly, that S. Iames speaketh of iustification before [ 3] men, which was nothing els but the testification of Abrahams righteousnesse to the world. Which exposition came from hea∣uen to Abraham, in these wordes; Lay not thine hand vpon the childe, neither doe any thing vnto him; for now I knowe that thou fearest God, seeing for my sake thou hast not spared thine onely sonne. Out of these wordes I note first, that this

offering vp of Abrahams sonne, was to try Abrahams faith, and obedience, as I said before; which I gather out of these wordes, (for now I knowe that thou fearest God.) I note se∣condly, y^t it was also to make known vnto the world, that great faith, feare, and loue, which Abraham had towardes God. As if God had said; I knew before, thy faith and loue towards me; but now I haue made the same knowne vnto the world.

The third obiection.

S. Iames saith plainly,* 1.817 that a man may keepe the law per∣fitly, and be iustified for so doing. These are the words; Whos•• looketh in the perfite law of libertie, and continueth therein, hee not being a forgetfull hearer but a doer of the work, shalbe bles∣sed in his deed.

The answere.

I say first, that no man can keep the law perfitly in this life, as I haue alreadie prooued copiously. I say secondly, y^t though [ 1] the regenerate doe not fulfil the law exactly, yet doe they con∣tinue [ 2] therein, so long as they striue against sinne, and suffer not sinne to raigne in them. For (as S. Paule saith,) When wee doe that which we would not, it is no more we that doe it,* 1.818 but the sinne that dwelleth in vs. Whereupon S. Austen saith ve∣ry finely; Ecce quemadmodum qui ambulant in vijs, domini,* 1.819 non operantur peccatum▪ & tamen non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem, sed quod habitat in eis peccatum. Behold howe they that walke in the waies of the Lord doe not sinne, and yet are they not without sinne; because now not they work iniquitie, but the sinne that dwelleth in them. I say third∣ly, [ 3] that it is one thing to be blessed in the worke; another thing to be blessed for the worke. And so when the regenerate become not vaine hearers of Gods worde, but bring forth the worthie fruites thereof in holy life; they shall doubtlesse be blessed in so doing, yet not for the worthinesse of their workes, but of Gods meere mercie for his promise sake. Thus doth S. Iames ex∣pound himselfe in the same chapter, when hee saith;* 1.820 Blessed is the man, that endureth temptation; for when he is tried, he shall receiue the crowne of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him.

The 4. obiection.

S. Luke saith, that Zacharias and Elizabeth were iust be∣fore God,* 1.821 not only before men; and that they walked in all the commandements of the Lord, without reproofe.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that if Zacharias and Elizabeth had kept y^e law exactly in all pointes,* 1.822 then Christ needed not to haue died for them, or to haue risen again for their iustification. For the per∣fite fulling of the law, giueth life to the doer thereof. I say se∣condly, [ 2] that they were of that number, of whom S. Iohn saith; if we say we haue no sinne,* 1.823 we deceiue our selues, and there is no trueth in vs. And of whom S. Paule saith; There is none righteous,* 1.824 no not one, they haue all gone out of the way, there is none that doth good, no not one. And of whom the Psalm••∣graphe saith; for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified. And of whom S. Austen saith;* 1.825 Vae etiam laudabili vitae homi∣num, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Woe euen to the best liuers on earth, if thou extend not thy mercie towards them.

I say thirdly, that they were iust before God, as were Da∣uid, [ 3] Peter, Paul, and others; not for that they were perfitly iust and without sinne,* 1.826 but because God reputed them so perfit∣ly iust, as if they had neuer sinned; and of his great mercie tho∣rough the merites of Christ Iesus, did not impute the breach of his law vnto them; according to this saying of the scripture. Blessed are they,* 1.827 whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sins are couered. Blessed is the man, to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne.

The fift obiection.

* 1.828The regenerate liue without sinne, and so may they iustly merite heauen. For we reade that Noah was iust, and perfite, and vpright, and walked with God. Remember (saith Dauid) howe I haue walked before thee in trueth,* 1.829 and with a perfite heart,* 1.830 and haue done that which is good in thy sight. Wee speake wisedome (saith the apostle,) among them that are per∣fite: and it is written of king Asa, y^t his heart was perfite all his daies. In another place y^e prophet saith, that he hath not swar∣ued

from Gods lawe. In another place, hee requireth God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse.* 1.831

The answere.

I say first, that as the Prophet Dauid in one place, required [ 1] God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse;* 1.832 so did he de∣sire God in another place not to enter into iudgment with him, because none liuing coulde be iustified in his ••••ght. So then his meaning is not, to oppose his owne righteousnesse to the iust iugement of God, (at which hee euer trembled and neuer durst abide it, as he saith in another place,* 1.833) but only to shew his own innocent dealing, in respect of the malicious and wicked practi∣ses of his enemies: although the papistes to establish their pha∣risaical iustice, would haue it to be vnderstood of Dauids own merites. I say secondly, that the perfitnesse which the scripture [ 2] ascribeth to Gods children, is not absolute but relatiue; that is to say, it is not perfite in respect of Gods law, but by reason of imputation of Christes iustice vnto them, (who hath simply and perfitly answered the law,) or in respect of the weaker sort, who want many degrees of their though imperfect iustice. For S. Paule denied himselfe to be perfite. Not as though I had alreadie attained to it (saith he,) either were already perfit.* 1.834 To which purpose holy Bernard writeth excellētly, in these words;* 1.835 Nostra enim (si qua est) humilis iustitia, recta for••itan▪ sed non pura. Nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros, qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant; omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris. For our base iu∣stice (if we haue any) is perchance right,* 1.836 but not pure or perfit•• vnlesse perhaps we beleeue, that we are better then our fathers were, who spake as truly as humbly; All our righteousnesse is as filthy clouts. But Christ (as the apostle saith) is our iustice, in him we are perfect and consummate.

I say thirdly, that the regenerate are said to liue perfectly and without sin, in that they striue against sin, and do not suffer [ 3] sin to raigne in them, thogh they cannot be without it. And this hath the same Bernard wel obserued and vttered in this maner; Quomodo enim pura iustitia, vbi adhuc non potest culpa d••esse? recta proinde interim videri potest iustitiae hominum,* 1.837 si tamen peccato non consentiant, vt non regnet in eorum mortali

corpore: For how can their iustice be pure, who cannot be with∣out sinne? yet may the iustice of men be right, if they consent not to sinne, nor suffer it to reigne in their mortall bodies. In which respect S. Iohn saith,* 1.838 that the faithfull sin not, because they suffer not sinne to raigne in them.

The replie.

If the regenerate cannot fulfill and keepe the lawe exactly, then is it giuen in vain, and without cause are we charged with the obedience thereof.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that Adam might haue kept the law perfitly, and in him al his posteritie might haue done the same. I say second∣ly, [ 2] that wee may yet keep the law in a certaine measure, and therefore must we striue against sinne, and studie to increase [ 3] our sanctification from day to day. I say thirdly, that by the law we know our owne nakednesse,* 1.839 sinnes, and miserie, and are thereby excited to seeke for remission of our sinnes, and to be clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus.

The replie.

The apostle saith in one place, that the iust are not vnder the law,* 1.840 but vnder grace. And in another place hee saith, y^t there is no law for the iust man: but where there is no law, there can be no transgression, and consequently no sinne at all.

The answere.

* 1.841I answere, that the iust are free from the coaction, curse, and condemnation of the law, as the apostle witnesseth in another place; but yet are they vnder the obedience of the law, & bound to frame their liues according to the prescript rule thereof, as other scripture maketh mention.

The replie.

How can any man frame his life after the prescription of the law, if none liuing can keepe the law as you defend?

The answere.

I answere, that if yee were well studied in your owne doc∣tors, and should marke well what they write, yee coulde not be ignorant of this point. Harken therefore what your owne Ber∣nard saith, and after you haue heard him, remember well his

words and neuer forget his holy instruction. Thus writeth he in one place; Cupiebat dissolui,* 1.842 & cum Christo esse sciens quòd peccatum separans inter nos & deum penitùs auferri non pote∣rit, donec liberemur à corpore. Sequitur; itaque dico vobis genus illud peccati quod toties conturbat nos (concupiscentias loquor & desideria mala) reprimi quidem debet & potest per gratiam dei, vt non regnet in nobis, nec demus membra nostra arma ini∣quitatis peccato, & sic nulla damnatio esthis qui sunt in Christo Iesu; sed non eiicitur nisi in morte, quando sic discerpimur, vt anima sepaietur à corpore. The Apostle did couet to be dissol∣ued and to be with Christ, knowing that sinne which maketh a diuision betweene God and vs,* 1.843 cannot wholy bee taken away while we remaine in this bodie. I therefore say vnto you, this kind of sin, which so often troubleth vs, (I speake of concupi∣scence and euill desires) ought & may be repressed by the grace of God, so as it raigne n••t in vs, nor we giue our members to be weapons of iniquitie vnto sinne, and so there is no damnati∣on to those that are in Christ Iesus; but it is not cast out saue only in death, when wee are so torne, that the soule is diuided from the body. Thus he saith in another place, Sit ergo in corde iustitia, & iustitia quae ex fide est.* 1.844 Haec enim sola habet gloriam apud deum. Sit etiam in ore confessio ad salutem, & securus iam suscipe eum qui in Bethlehem Iudae nascitur, Iesum Christum fili∣um Dei. Let righteousnes therefore be in thine heart, euen that iustice which is of faith; for onely that righteousnesse or iustice hath glorie with God, (howsoeuer righteousnes be esteemed among men.) Haue also confession in thy mouth vnto saluation and then receiue him with security, that is borne in Bethlehem of Iuda, Iesus Christ the sonne of God. Thus he saith in the third place; Omne quod natum est ex Deo, non peccat;* 1.845 sed hoc dic∣tum est de praedestinatis ad vitam: non quòd omnino non peccent, sed quòd peccatum ipsis non imputetur. All that is borne of god sinneth not, but this is spoken of the predestinate to life, not be∣cause they sin not at al, but for that sin is not imputed to them.

Thus doth he say in the fourth place, Ʋtique quod factum est,* 1.846 non potest non fieri; ipso tamen non imputante, erit quasi non fu∣erit. Quod propheta quoque considerans ait; Beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum. The sinne doubtlesse that is

done, can not be vndone; yet for that God doth not impute sin vnto vs, we shal be as if we had not sinned: which the prophet considering saith; Blessed is the man to whome God shall not impute sinne.

Out of these foure places conteining most comfortable and [ 1] christian doctrine: I note first, that concupiscence remaineth [ 2] in the regenerate, euen vnto death. I note secondly, that it is properly sinne, euen in the regenerate; which being vttered by their owne deere Bernard, giueth a deadly wound to the pa∣pists. For he saith, that that concupiscence which remaineth to death, doth separate vs from God. Which effect, nothing but that which is properly sinne, can possibly worke in man. I note [ 3] thirdly, that although this concupiscence, can not be taken awaie from the regenerate vntil death; yet may it be so repres∣sed by Gods spirite, as it shall not raigne in them, or haue do∣minion ouer them. I note fourthly, that it bringeth not [ 4] damnation to the regenerate, who striue against it; and that, because God doth not impute it to sinne. I note fiftly, that the regenerate are saide not to sinne, not because they sinne not, or haue no sinne indeede; but because God of his meere mercie▪ accepting their faith through the merits of Christ Iesus doth [ 5] not impute sinne vnto them. I note sixtly, that no iustice but that which is of faith, is or can be acceptable in Gods sight. Ioyne these sayings of saint Bernard to the testimonie of saint Austen,* 1.847 cited in the answer to the first obiection, in the seuenth conclusion: and that done, a mightie article of popish doctrine, will be vtterlie ouerthrowne.

The sixt obiection.

* 1.848Wherefore (saith S. Peter,) labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election? There∣fore good workes are a meane for vs to attaine to the effect of Gods predestination; that is, to life euerlasting: as whose cer∣tainetie (if the apostle say truelie) is procured by mans freewil and good workes.

The answer.

[ 1] I say first, that God did elect and predestinate vs, without

regard of our works. For (as the apostle saith,) he chose vs in Christ, before y^e foundatiō of the world: (not bicause we were holy, but) that we should be holy. I say secōdly, that the words [ 2] (by good works) are not in the originall & Greek text, but on∣ly in the popish latin vulgata editio. For which & like respects your late Tridentine council hath so magnified the same. I say thirdly, that good works are the proper effects of predestinatiō [ 3] & electiō, and therfore are a sure testificaton therof in y^e sight & iudgement of man. And if your translation be admitted (wher∣in I wil not contend, because y^e sense is not much different) yet can there no more be inferred vpon y^e words, vnlesse some wil say that the effect can go before the cause, & that which folow∣eth, be the cause of that that went before. But both their owne doctour Aquinas and their double glossa interlinialis and or∣dinaria doe giue the same exposition with mee; to wit,* 1.849 that the apostle willeth vs, to make knowne our eleccion by doing of good works, as which yeeld to man a morall certitude thereof.

The seauenth obiection.

Saint Paul willeth the Philippians to worke their saluati∣on, with feare and trembling: but doubtlesse,* 1.850 he that can worke his saluation, may by his works merite heauen.

The answere.

I say first, with the selfesame apostle in the next verse follow∣ing, [ 1] that we are so far from meriting heauen by our works, that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede,* 1.851 e∣uen of his good pleasure. Yea, as he saith in another place; we are saued by grace through faith, & that neither of our selues, nor yet of works, lest any man should boast himselfe. And ther∣fore the apostle meaneth nothing lesse, then that we shoulde purchase and merite heauen by our good workes. I say se∣condly with deuout Bernard, that the ready way to attaine sal∣uation, [ 2] is to beleeue the contrarie doctrine. These are his ex∣presse wordes; Necesse est primò omnium credere,* 1.852 quòd remissi∣onem peccatorum habere non possis, nisi per indulgentiam Dei: deinde, quòd nihil prorsus habere queas operis boni, nisi & hoc dederit ipse; postremò, quòd aeternam vitam nullis potes ope∣ribus promereri, nisi gratis detur & illa. First of all, thou

must beleeue of necessitie, that thou canst not haue remission of thy sinnes vnlesse God will giue thee a pardon for the same. Againe thou must beleeue, that thou canst not haue any good works at all, vnlesse thou receiue it at Gods hand; Last of all, thou must beleeue that thou canst not merite eternall life by a∣ny [ 3] works, vnlesse it be freely giuen (of mercie.) I say thirdly, that the apostle meaneth nothing else, but that as god hath cal∣led vs, and offered saluation to vs, and withal giuen vs power to will and to do well; so we ought by faith to embrace his gra∣tious gifts, and to shew our selues thankfull by the obedience of his holy lawes. For to this ende hath God chosen vs, called vs, and iustified vs, not that we should liue idly and dissolutely, but that we should exercise our selues in faith and good works, and in obedience be answerable to his holy vocation. For this respect doth the same apostle say in another place;* 1.853 For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good works, which God hath ordained, that we should walke in them.

The eight obiection.

Redeeme thy sinnes with righteousnes (saith the prophet,) and thine iniquities with mercie towards the poore.* 1.854 Therefore with good workes we may satisfie for our sinnes, and procure Gods fauour towards vs.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first with the apostle, that no man is able to make sa∣tisfaction for his sinnes. And I adde Bernards glosse vnto the same,* 1.855 who writeth thus; Iam verò de aeterna vita scimus, quia non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, nec si vnus omnes sustineat. Neque enim talia sunt ho∣minum merita, vt propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex iure, aut Deus iniuriam aliquam faceret nisi eam donaret. Nam vt taceā quòd merita omnia Dei dona sunt▪ & ita homo magis propter ip∣sa Deo debitor est, quàm Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam? deni{que} quis melior est prophetâ▪ cui dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet, dicens, virum inueni se∣cundum cor meum? veruntamen & ipse necesse habuit dicere deo, non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine. Nowe touching eternall life, wee knowe that the sufferings of this time are

not worthy of y^e glorie to come, no not if one man abide al. For the merits of men are not such, that for them eternal life is due by right, or that god shuld do som iniury, if he gaue it not. For to let passe that all merits are the gifts of God,* 1.856 and so man is rather debter to God for them, then God to man; what are al merits to so great glorie? In fine, who is better then the pro∣phet, to whom our Lorde giueth so worthie testimonie, saying; I haue found a man according to my heart? for al that, he had need to say to god; Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord. In which words the papists are vtterly condemned, by their owne approued doctour. For first, S. Bernard saith, [ 1] that nothing which man can doe or suffer in this life, is worthy of the ioyes of heauen. Secondly, he saith, that heauen is not [ 2] due to anie man for his own deserts. Thirdly, he saith, that god [ 3] should doe no man wrong, if hee should debarre him of hea∣uen. Fourthly, he saith that man is more in debt to God, then [ 4] God to man; and he yeeldeth this reason, because it is the free gift of God, what good soeuer be in man. Fifitly, hee alleageth [ 5] holy scripture, for the grounde of his assertion.

I say secondly, that the Hebrew word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) doth properly [ 2] signifie to breake or dissolue; in which signification the prophet seemeth to vse it here, although it also signifie to saue or deli∣uer: as if the prophet had said; O king, thou hast liued wicked∣ly, and dealt cruelly with Gods people: nowe therefore make an end of sinne, and begin a new course of life; change thy cruel∣ty into clemencie,* 1.857 and thy tyrannie into mercie and conpassion toward the poore. Thus doth Theodoretus expound this text.

I say thirdly, that albeit we cannot redeeme our sins in Gods [ 3] sight, or make satisfaction for the same in the court of his iu∣stice, as is proued exactly out of holy Bernard; yet may wee re∣deeme them before men, while we reconcile our selues to those whome we haue offended, and make restitution where we haue done wrong. And of this kind of redemption, may the Prophet not vnfitly be vnderstoode.

The replie.

Not only S. Bernard in the words by you alleaged, but the other fathers vsually and▪ generally do acknowledge the merit

of good works, which you and your solifidians cannot abide.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that though the fathers doe often vse the worde Merit, when they speake of good works, yet do they neuer take it in your popish maner, nor expect heauen for the worthinesse of their works. Which I wish the reader to obserue diligētly, because the papists euer wrest the word (Merite) to the wrong sense. This is cleare by the words of Bernard alreadie cited, to which for better confirmatiō, I adde these his words in another place;* 1.858 Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas. Nolo meritū quod gratiā excludat: horre•• quicquid de me•• est vt ••im meus, nisi quòd illud magis forsitan meum est, quod me meum facit. Gratia red∣dit me mihi iustificatū gratis, & sic liberatum à seruitute pecca∣ti. It derogateth from grace whatsoeuer thou ascribest to me∣rite. I will no merite, that excludeth grace. I abhorre whatso∣euer is of mine owne, that I may be mine owne, vnlesse per∣chance that is more mine owne, which maketh me mine owne. Grace iustifieth me to my self freely, and so deliuereth me from the bondage of sinne.

[ 2] I say secondly, that the fathers tearme workes meritorious, not for the worthinèsse thereof,* 1.859 but for Gods acceptation and promise sake. That is to say, they tearme good works merito∣rious, because God hath promised to accept the works of the faithfull as worthie, for the worthines of his sonne; and for his merits to reward them with heauen, as if they had merited the same. For which respect either euer or almost euer, they ioyne merite and grace together. This veritie wil be manifest, if wee ponder deepely, what famous popish doctours haue written herein. Bernard hath these expresse wordes; Sic non est quod iam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona,* 1.860 praesertim cum audias apud prophetam; non propter vos, sed propter me ego fa∣ciam, dicit dominus: sufficit ad meritum, scire quod non suffici∣ant merita. So there is no cause, that thou shouldest nowe aske by what merites we hope for glorie, especially since thou hea∣rest the prophet say; I will doe it saieth the Lorde, not for your sake, but for mine owne. It is sufficient to merite, to know that our merites are not sufficient. Thus saith deuout

Bernard, who though hee liued in the greatest mist of poperie, and so was carried away with some errours of his time; yet did hee teach most christian doctrine, almost in all his workes: and because hee was reputed a great papist with the papists, his testimonie is euer most forcible against them and their proceedings.

Aquinas hath these expresse words: Manifestum est autem,* 1.861 quòd inter Deum & hominem est maxima inaequalitas, (in infi∣nitum enim distant) totum quod est hominis bonum, est à Deo: Ʋnde non potest hominis à Deo esse iustitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem▪ sed secundum proportionem quandam, in quantum scilicet vterque operatur secundum modum suum. Modus autem & mensura humanae virtutis homini est à Deo, & ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest, nisi secundum praesuppositio∣nem diuinae ordinationis; ita scilicet, vt id homo consequatur à Deo per suam operationem, quasi mercedem, ad quod Deus ei vir∣tutem operandi destinauit. And it is manifest, that betweene God & man there is exceeding great inequalitie (for they differ in infinit;) all the good that man hath, is of God. Wherefore mans iustice receiued of God, cannot be according to absolute equalitie, but after a certain proportion, to wit, in as much as either worketh according to his condition. Now man hath the measure and condition of his vertue from God, and therefore mans merite cannot be with God, saue onely according to the supposal of Gods holy ordinance: so to wit, that man may at∣taine that at Gods hand by his working, as reward, to which God hath appointed his power of working. Thus writeth the master papist Aquinas; who vtterly ouerthroweth all popish merite, as it is this day defended in the church of Rome.* 1.862 For first, (marke well gentle Reader, for this is a weightie point,) [ 1] Aquinas telleth vs, that where there is not perfert equali∣tie, there can be no merite properlie. Secondly, hee graunteth [ 2] that there is infinite inequalitie betweene God and man. Thirdly, hee confesseth that mans iustice is not absolute, but imperfect. Fourthly, he granteth, that mā doth merite nothing [ 3] in Gods sight, saue only by way of his free acceptation. Fift∣ly, [ 4] he confesseth that eternall life is not properly hyre, but as it [ 5] were hyre, by reason of the same acceptation.

Durandus their owne schooleman denieth euery mans works how iust or holie soeuer he be,* 1.863 to be simply and properly meri∣torious; but onely to merite in an vnproper and large kinde of speech; Meritum (inquit) propriè de condigno est, cui simplici∣ter debetur aequale virtute operis:* 1.864 nullum autem opus nostrum aequale potest esse vitae aeternae, neque illam largitur nobis Deus ex iustitia, sed ex quadam liberalitate sane quia gratìs acceptat nostra opera. Merite (saith Durand) is properly of the worthy, to which that is simply due which is equall by the vertue of the worke: but no worke of ours can be equall to eternall life, nei∣ther doth God giue it vs of iustice, but of meere liberalitie, in that he freely accepteth our workes.

Gregorius Ariminensis, Marsilius, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis,* 1.865 and Io. Eckius, all being zealous papists, doe for al that denie mans workes to be meritorious of eternal life, how holy soeuer the man be.

And (gentle Reader) that thou mayest fully knowe, howe the papists haue of late yeeres bewitched the world, and vnder pretence of holy zeale seduced simple soules; call to minde that they vse to wrest the scriptures (as I haue already proued out of their owne doctors) and to come new no distinctions to make their false doctrine good. Which for thy better satisfaction, I will prooue concerning this present controuersie of the merite of works, out of Iosephus Angles a grey frier and learned po∣pish bishop, who euen in that booke which he dedicated to the pope himselfe (so mightie is the truth) writeth in these expresse words:

* 1.866Diuus Chrysostomus ait; Etsi millies moriamur, etsi omnes virtutes animae expleamus, nihil dignum ger••mus ad ea, quae ipsi à Deo percipimus. Eodem etiam modo cōsiderantes omnes alij doctores sancti naturalem solummodo bonorum operum valorem, & illum à valore & iusta vitae aeternae aestimatione longissime distare perpendentes, prudenter dixerunt, opera nostra non esse meritoria aut digna vita aterna. Ex lege tamen siue conuenti∣one, siue promissione facta nobiscum, opera bona hominis cum adiutorio gratiae Dei fiunt aeternae vitae digna, & illi aequalia; quae seclusa illa dei promissione quae passim in sacris literis re∣petitur,

fuissent tanto praemio prorsus indigna.

Saint Chrysostome sayeth,* 1.867 though wee dye a thousand times, and accomplish all vertue of the minde, yet doe wee nothing worthie of those things which wee receiue of God. And all other holy doctors, considering after the same manner the naturall valure only of good words, and perceiuing that it is exceeding farre distant from the valure and iust estimation of eternall life, sayd wisely, that our works are not meritorious nor worthie of eternall life. Yet for the couenant and promise made with vs, the good works of man with the help of Gods grace, are worthy of eternall life, and equall with it; which for all that, that promise of God which is frequent in the scrip∣tures set aside, were altogether vnworthie of so great re∣ward.

Thus sayth our Popish Bishoppe and holy Frier, who though he bestirre himselfe more then a little, to establish the condigne merite of works, yet doth he in his owne kind of rea∣soning, vtterly confute and confound himselfe. For first, he [ 1] graunteth that not onely S. Chrysostome, but all the rest of the holy Fathers with him, affyrme good workes neyther to be meritorious, nor worthy of eternall life. Agayne, he graunteth [ 2] that workes considered in their naturall kinde, are vnworthie of eternall life. Thirdly, he graunteth that good works euen [ 3] as they proceede of grace and assistance of the holy Ghost, are for all that vnworthy of eternall life, if Gods promise and free acceptation be set apart. Which three poynts doubtlesse are all that we desire to be graunted, concerning the doctrine of good works. And so, (though the Papists neuer cease to impeach, accuse, slaunder, and condemne vs in this behalfe) yet do we defend nothing heerein, but that which their owne best Doc∣tors and printed bookes doe teach vs; yea, euen such bookes as are dedicate to the Popes holinesse himselfe. The conceites which this Bishop alledgeth to make good his intended pur∣pose, are childish and too too friuolous. For first, where hee sayth that the Fathers speake of good workes onely in re∣spect of their naturall valure (as hee tearmeth it;) I a••n∣swere,* 1.868 that that glosse and exposition is onely inuented by him and his fellowes, to salue their beggerly doctrine if it

wold be. For besides y^t no father saith so; they repute al works before grace meere sin, as I haue prooued out of Austen. And our Bishop vnwittingly confuteth himselfe (of such force is the trueth,) when he graunteth that good works done in grace are vnworthy of heauen, if Gods promise be set apart. For if they merite ex condigno, as he auoucheth; then doubtlesse pro∣mise, couenant, and mercie, is altogither needlesse. Secondly, where the bishop fleeth to distributiue iustice, so to establishe the merite of workes; I answere, that both the fathers and his fel∣lowes are against him,* 1.869 yea euen Aquinas himselfe. For they vnderstand iustice commutatiue, and require arithmetical equa∣litie. And if Geometricall proportion were to be admitted; yet should greater equalitie be required, then can be found between our workes and eternall life.

The 9 obiection.

Ye brag that the merite of good workes, cannot be found in all the Scripture:* 1.870 But therein you belie both vs and the holy scripture. For in the booke of Ecclesiasticus, I finde these ex∣presse wordes; Omnis misericordia faciet locum vnicui{que} secun∣dum meritum operum suorum. All mercie shall make place to euerie one, according to the merite of his workes. Loe, here is made expresse mention, of the merite of his good workes.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that the booke of Ecclesiasticus is not canonicall Scripture, as which was not found written in the holy tongue. [ 2] I say secondly, that it is not for nothing, that your late councel of Trent hath so magnified your Latine vulgata editio. For such stuffe as this, it doth affoord you in time of neede. I say thirdly, that in the originall and Greeke text, your worde (me∣rite) may long seeke for lodging, before it finde any. For these are the expresse wordes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Make place to all almes, for euerie one shall find ac∣cording to his workes.

The 10. obiection.

One Scripture saith, that if we giue almes, all things are pure vnto vs. Another scripture saith, that charitie couereth the multitude of sinnes.* 1.871 And it is frequent with the holy fathers, that good workes deliuer vs from hell.

The answere.

I say first, that S. Luke reprooueth y^e extortions of the Pha∣risies, & exhorteth them to works of charitie. As if he had said; [ 1] not vnwashed handes make you eate vncleanly, but your wic∣ked extortions. Vse therefore charitie, and giue almes to the poore, and then your soules shalbe cleane, though the platter be vnwashed. This sense is gathered out of the verses aforegoing.

I say secondly, that almesdeedes▪ and other good works pro∣ceeding [ 2] of faith, do neither merite nor iustifie as is prooued; but yet they are testimonies before men, that wee be iustified by faith through the merites of Christ Iesus. For which respect, iustification is often ascribed vnto them; as to the effects therof. I say thirdly, that the fathers in many places doe speake of [ 3] temporal remission, which often is graunted for almes deeds and the like.

The replie.

If good workes can neither iustifie nor merite, then is it but a vaine thing to exercise our selues therein.

The answere.

I say first, that thus to say and thinke is a probable signe of [ 1] the reprobate, who hath no feeling of Gods holy spirite, but is become senselesse in all spirituall contemplation. I say second∣ly, that albeit good workes doe neither iustifie nor merite, in [ 2] proper kinde of speech; yet be there many good and necessary causes, why we should doe good workes. First, because God is glorified therein. Therefore saith Christ; let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good workes, and glorifie your father which is in heauen. Secondly, because by good workes we shew our gratitude & loue towards God. Therfore saith Christ; If ye loue me, keep my cōmandements. Thirdly,* 1.872 because it is the end for which we were created. Therfore saith the apostle; For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Ie∣sus vnto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walke in them. Fourthly,* 1.873 because they are necessary effectes of our predestination, and consequently yeeld and euident morall certitude both to our selues & to our neighbours, that we are y^e childrē of God. Therfore saith the apostle; There is no cōdem∣nation to thē, y^t are in Christ Iesus, which walk not after y^e flesh

but after the spirite: as if hee had said, Who soeuer are the chil∣drē of God, cannot but liue after Gods holy lawes. Which is the selfe same doctrine, that Christ himselfe taught vs, saying; If ye shall keepe my commaundementes,* 1.874 yee shall abide in my loue; as I haue kept my fathers commandement, and abide in his loue.* 1.875 And S. Iohn confirmeth the same in these wordes: In this wee know that we loue the children of God, when we loue God and keepe his commandementes. For this is the loue of God, that we keep his commandementes. So then if we keep Gods commandementes, it is an euident signe, that we loue God, and that by faith wee are of his free mercie made his chil∣dren, for the merites and righteousnesse of Christ Iesus. See more hereof in the eleuenth preamble, in my first booke of Mo∣tiues.

The 8 conclusion.

Although good workes doe neither merite grace in this life, nor glorie in the life to come, as which are imperfect, polluted with sinne, and in rigour of iustice worthy of condemnation, as is alreadie prooued; yet because God hath decreed in his eternal counsel to bring vs to heauen by them, as by ordinary meanes and right fruites of a sound christian faith; they may in a godly sense be termed, The secundary instrumentall cause of eternall life; but in no sense the cause of mans iustification. Explico: I say (of mans iustification,) because the latter can neuer be the cause of the former; and consequently good workes following our iustification as the immediate fruites thereof, can by no meanes possible be the cause of the same. In regard whereof S. Austen as in many other thinges,* 1.876 so in this point saide very learnedly; Quòd opera non praecedunt iustificandum, sed sequū∣tur iustificatum. That workes doe not go before iustification, but followe him that is iustified; I say (of eternall life) because when there be many gradual effectes of one and the same cause, then the former may fitly be termed the materiall cause of the latter; that is, as the schooles terme it, Causa sine qua non, The cause without which the latter shall not haue effect. For as vocation,* 1.877 iustification, regeneration, and glorification are the effectes of predestination; euen so by Gods holy ordinance, be∣ing predestinate, wee are called by the hearing of his word vnto

••aith,* 1.878 which faith is the cause of our iustification by apprehen∣ding the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus; after wee be iustified of our iustification proceedes regeneration, as who hauing re∣mission of our sinnes, and being ingraffed in Christ by faith, are indued with more aboundant grace of his holy spirite, tho∣rough which we are dayly more and more regenerate, and made new creatures; after we be regenerate, out of our regeneration spring good workes aswel internall, as externall; as who being made good trees, begin to bring forth good fruits; and so con∣tinuing are brought at the length of Gods free mercie, to the possession of eternall life. For as y^e apostle saith,* 1.879 we are created vnto good workes, which God hath ordained that wee shoulde walke in them: and continuing in them, we shall at the dreadful day of doome heare this ioyfull sentence, pronounced to our vnspeakable comfort; Come yee blessed of my father, take the inheritance of the kingdome, prepared for you from the foun∣dation of the world. For I was an hungred,* 1.880 and ye gaue me meate; I was thirsty, and ye gaue me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in vnto you; I was naked and ye clothed me, I I was sicke, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me. And with this, it is true yet y^t the apostle saith;* 1.881 Not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done, but according to his mercie he saued vs, by the washing of the new birth, and by renuing of the holy Ghost, which hee shed on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our sauiour, that wee being iustified by his grace, should be made heires according to the hope of eter∣nall life. This is a true saying, and these thinges I will thou shouldest affirme, that they which haue beleeued God, might be carefull to shew forth good workes. These things are good and profitable vnto men. Thus saith S. Paule, and therefore I thinke this a profitable conclusion. By it rightly vnderstood, many places of holy Scripture may easily be answered, which seeme to ascribe iustification or glorification to good workes.

The 10. conclusion.

This popish assertion,* 1.882 that workes doe iustifie and merite e∣ternall life de condigno, was for the space of a thousand and eightie yeares vnknowne to the church of God. About which

time Petrus Lombardus and his fellowes began their scholasti∣call theologie,* 1.883 and disputed such matters doubtfully. About the yeare of our Lord 1545. the late councell of Trent defi∣ned the same for an article of christian beliefe, solemnely accur∣sing al such as hold the contrary opinion. This is the originall and antiquitie of this impudently defended heresie. It is suf∣ficiently confuted throughout the whole chapter.

CHAP. X. Of the popish idololatricall masse.

The 1. conclusion.

TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people, the [ 1] one part of the holy communion, is a diabolical, hereticall, and sacrilegious fact. I prooue it sundry waies: First, because it is flatly against the expresse scripture,* 1.884 and Christes holy in∣stitution. For Christ himselfe instituted and ministred the Sa∣crament in both kindes, saying; drinke yee all of it, as Saint Mathew recordeth: and they all dranke of it, as witnesseth Saint Marke. Saint Paule also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kindes, protesting that hee deliuered the forme and maner of the holy communion, euen as he had in spi∣rite receiued it from the Lord.

* 1.885Secondly, because the auncient fathers shew euidently, that in their time it was the generall practise of the church, to deli∣uer the holy communion to the lay people vnder both kindes. Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any setled law,* 1.886 vntill the late councell of Constance, which was in the yere of our Lord God, 1414.

* 1.887Origen hath these words; Quis est iste populus, qui in vsu ha∣bet sanguinem bibere? haec erant quae in euangelio audientes ij qui ex Iudaeis dominum sequebantur, scandalizati sunt, & dixerunt; Quis potest manducare carnem, & sanguinem bibere? sed populus Christianus, populus fidelis audit haec, & amplecti∣tur, & sequitur eum qui dicit: nisi manducaueritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis, quia caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè potus est.

Who is that people, that hath in custome to drinke bloud? these were the thinges which the Iewes that followed Christ heard in the gospel, and were scandalized, and said; Who can eate flesh and drinke bloud? but the christian people, the faith∣full people, heare these thinges, and embrace them, and follow him that sayth; vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh & drink my bloud, ye shall haue no life in your selues, because my fleshe is meate indeed, and my bloud drinke indeed?

S. Hierome hath these words; Sacerdotes quo{que} qui euchari¦stiae seruiunt, & sanguinem domini populis eius diuidunt,* 1.888 im∣piè agunt in legem Christi.

The Priestes also that administer the eucharist, and diuide the Lordes bloud to his people, transgresse the law of Christ heynously.

Saint Cyprian with fourtie learned bishops, in their ioynt Epistle to Cornelius, write in this expresse maner;* 1.889 Quo modo docemus aut prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum ido••••os facimus, si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communica∣tionis admittimus? Howe doe we teache 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them to shed their bloud for the name of Christ, if wee denie them the bloud of Christ, when they go to warre? or how doe we make them fit for the cuppe of martyrdome, if wee doe not first admit them to drinke the Lordes cuppe in the Churche, and that by the right of communion?* 1.890 where I wishe the reader to note well that the lay people haue right to both kindes; and conse∣quently, that the Romish church is become the whore of Ba∣bylon, in that shee robbeth vs of our christian right, which wee haue de iure diuino.

Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes:* 1.891 Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito, vt quando fruendum est honorandis myste∣riis. Similiter enim omnes vt illa percipiamus digni habe∣mur. Non sicut in veteri lege, partem quidem sacerdos come∣debat, partem autem populus; & non licebat populo partici∣pem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos. Sed nunc non sic: verum omnibus vnum corpus proponitur & poculum vnum.

There is a place, where there is no difference betweene the priest & the lay person, as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries; for we are all in like worthie, for that commu∣nion; not as it was in the olde lawe, where the priest ate one part and the people another; neither coulde the people be per∣mitted to take part of that that the priest ate. For nowe it is not so, but to all is proposed one bodie and one cuppe. Out of [ 1] these golden words I note first, that the difference in commu∣nion, is a Iudaicall ceremonie from which Christs death deli∣uered [ 2] vs. I note secondly, that in the christian communion, the common people ought to be as free as the minister. I note [ 4] thirdly, that it was so in Saint Chrysostomes time, when the people receiued vnder both kinds.* 1.892 I note fourthly, that the pope hath brought vs into greater bondage then euer were the Iewes. S. Ignatius hath these wordes; Vna est caro domini Iesu▪ & vnus eius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est, vnus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus, & vnus calix totius ecclesiae. There is one flesh of our Lord Iesus, & one blood which was shed for vs, one bread also broken for all, and one cuppe of the whole church.

* 1.893Saint Iustine hath these wordes; Praesidens vero, postquam gratiarum actionem perfecit, & populus vniuersus apprecati∣one laeta eum comprobauit, qui apud nos vocantur diaconi atquo ministri, distribuunt vnicuique praesentium, vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem, vinum, & aquam. After the chiefe pastour hath finished the giuing of thankes, and all the people haue with ioyfull prayer approoued the same, they that we cal Deacons and Ministers, do distribute to euery one that is present, the sanctified bread, wine, and water, to be partaker thereof.

Yea the said Iustinus a little after addeth these important wordes; Nam apostoli in commentarijs à se scriptis quae euan∣gelia vocantur, ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum. For the apostles in their commentaries, that is, in the gospelles, haue taught vs, that Iesus so commaunded them (to minister the holie communion.) Where note by the way, that Christ did not onelie ordaine both kindes, but he also gaue commaunde∣ment to retaine the same in the church. For which cause saint

Paul teaching the Corinthians to communicate vnder both kinds, said that he receiued that form & maner from the Lord.* 1.894 S. Austen hath these words: Cum Dom. dicat,* 1.895 nisi manduca∣ueritis carnem meam & biberitis meum sanguinem, non habebi∣tis vitam in vobis: quid sibi vult, quod à sanguine sacrificio∣rum quae pro peccatis offerebantur, tantopere populus prohibe∣tur, si illis sacrificijs vnum hoc sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum? à cuius tamen sacrificij sanguine in alimentum sumendo nō solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortātur qui volunt habere vitam. When our Lord saith, vnles ye shal eate my flesh and drinke my blood, ye shal haue no life in you: what meaneth it that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of sacrifices which was offered for sins, if in those sacrifices this onely sacrifice was signified, in which there is true remission of sins? From y^e blood of which sacrifice for al that to be takē for nourishment, not only none is prohibited, but al rather are exhorted to drinke it, that desire to haue life. S. Ambrose, at such time as the emperour Theo∣dosius after his great slaughter of men at Thessalonica desi∣red to enter into the church at Millan, and there to be partaker of the holie eucharist, spoke these words vnto him; Quî quaeso,* 1.896 manus iniusta caede & sanguine respersas extendere audes, & eisdem sacrosanctum corpus domini accipere? aut quomodo ve∣nerandum eius sanguinem ori admouebis, qui furore irae iuben∣te tantum sanguinis tam iniquè effudisti? How I pray thee da∣rest thou stretch out thy hands sprinckled with vniust slaughter and blood, and to take the holie bodie of our Lord in the same? Or how wilt thou touch thy mouth with his venerable blood, who to satisfy thy fury, hast shed so much bloud so vnworthily?

Gregorius magnus their owne bishop of Rome, confirmeth this veritie in these words: Eius quippe ibi corpus sumitur,* 1.897 eius caro in populi salutem partitur, eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium, sed in ora fidelium funditur. For his bodie is there receiued, his flesh is diuided for the saluation of the people, his bloud is now powred, not into the handes of infidels, but into the mouthes of the faithfull. What need many words? Their owne Gelasius in their owne canon law, condemneth their fact as flat sacrilege. These be his words:* 1.898 Aut integra sacramenta

percipiant, aut ab integris arceātur: quia diuisio vnius eiusdē{que} mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire Either let them participate the whole sacraments, or els let them abstain from the whole; bicause the diuision of one and the same sacra∣ment, cannot be done without great sacrilege.

The first obiection.

* 1.899The commaundement to receiue in both kinds, was onelie giuen to the twelue apostles, and in them to all priestes: for they onely were present, when Christ sp••ke these wordes; Drinke ye all of this.

The answer.

[ 1] I say first, that if the commaundement pertained onelie to the apostles, then are priests aswell as clarkes free from the [ 2] same. I say secondly, that the commandement was giuen of both kindes in one and the selfe same maner, and therefore the lay people are as free from the one as the from the other. I say [ 3] thirdly, that by the common opinion of the papists, they were lay people that receiued the communion at Christs handes in his supper.* 1.900 For the apostles were vnpriested vntil after his re∣surrection, when hee saide; Receiue ye the holy ghost. I say [ 4] fourthly with S. Bernard that the participation of both kinds was commaunded by Christ,* 1.901 in the first institution thereof: for thus doth he write: Nam de sacramento quidem corporis & san∣guinis sui, nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam & tam sin∣gularem alimoniam eâ primùm die exhibitam, eâ die commen∣datam & mandatam deinceps frequentari. For concerning the sacrament of his body and bloud, euery one knoweth that this such and so singular nourishment was exhibited that day the first, that day commended, and commaunded afterward to be frequented. This commandement S. Cyprian and saint Iu∣stine vrge for both kindes; their words already are set downe. [ 5] I say fiftly, that S. Paul who knew Christs minde aswell as any papist, did communicate the vnpriested Corinthians vnder both kinds, and told them that Christ had so appointed.

The replie.

S. Paul only recited Christs institution, (saith our Iesuite Bellarmine) but gaue no commaundement for both kindes, but left it as he found it, indifferent, and in the free choise of the

Corinthians, to communicate in both or in one only kind.

The answere.

I say first, that howsoeuer sundry of you admire your Ie∣suites [ 1] (whom I willingly confesse to be learned, wishing they would vse their learning to Gods glorie) yet cannot wise men be carried away with ipse dixit, as if they were become disci∣ples of Pythagoras. I say secōdly, that S. Pauls own words [ 2] confute your Iesuite sufficiently. For first, he saith that he de∣liuered euen that which he receiued. Againe, he reciteth the precept aswel after the cup as after the bread, which must bee wel obserued. For hereupon doth it follow that both kinds be of like force, the one not more commanded then y^e other. Third¦ly, he applieth aswel the drinking of the cup as the eating of y^e bread, to al the faithful in generall. Fourthly, he applieth the examination to euery one of the faithful. Fiftly, he willeth the examination to be made, aswel in drinking of the cup, as in eat∣ing of the bread. Sixtly, he wrote & spake aswel to the lay peo¦ple as to the priests, as the beginning of the epistle declareth. And in this sense doth their owne Haymo (so reputed) expound S. Paul: for these are his words; Ego▪ n•• accepi à domino,* 1.902 quod et tradidi vobis .i. myster••ū corporis & sanguinis Dom. quomodo debeatis sumere. Sicut mihi reuelauit, ita tradidi vobis. For I haue receiued of the Lord, that which I deliuered to you, that is, the mysterie of our Lords body and bloud, in what manner ye ought to receiue it. Euen as he reuealed it to me, so haue I deliuered it to you.

The reply.

S. Marke maketh it plaine,* 1.903 that it was onely spoken to the apostles; Drinke ye all of it. For he addeth; And they all dranke of it. For it is cleare, that al they dranke thereof, who were commaunded to drinke.

The answere.

I say first, that it was spoken to al the faithfull, aswell as to [ 1] the apostles. For Paul exhorted the whole church at Corinth, to vse both the kinds, saying, that God had so appointed. As if he had said; not I, but the Lord cōmandeth you thus to do, for he reuealed to me, euen as I haue deliuered vnto you. There∣fore if ye do it not, you transgresse his holy commaundement. Yea S. Paul declared expressely in the very beginning of his

epistle, that commandement of receiuing the holy Eucharist in both kindes concerned all the faithfull in the world, as well to come, as thē liuing. For these words (Ye shal shew the Lords death till he come,* 1.904) doe euidently prooue, that the forme pre∣scribed by the apostle must continue after the death of the Co∣rinthians, [ 2] euen till the day of doome. I say secondly, that since Christ himselfe instituted both kinds; since the apostle deliuered both kinds euen to the lay people; since the church communi∣cated to the faithful laycall people in both kinds euerie where, for many hundred yeres together, as the papists themselues cannot denie; since they confesse that both kinds may lawfully be vsed; since no scripture teacheth vs, that one kind is suffici∣ent; since no father did euer exhort to vse one only kind; since no councell till the late synode of Constance, did euer commaund one only kind; in fine, since the church for more then a thousand yeeres together did euer vse both kinds: how impudent, howe vnchristian, nay, how tyrannicall and bloud-thirstie is the Pope of Rome, and his Iesuits that incense and excite him thereun∣to; who labor this day with fire and fagot, to enforce the faith∣ful [ 3] to the contrary. I say thirdly, that this obiection maketh a∣gainst the papists: for in that they al dranke therof, it cannot fo∣low that none else may drinke thereof; (otherwise the practise of the church hitherto should haue beene wicked, and the apo∣stles themselues haue sinned grieuously) but that all present ought to drinke thereof.* 1.905 For which cause their owne canon-law commaundeth all to bee putte out of the church, that will not communicate when the consecration is ended. Yea, their own Pope Iulius doth condemne their grosse illation, as who vnderstoode Christes wordes of all the faithfull. Thus doth he write;* 1.906 Illud vero quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex e∣uangelio testimonium receperunt, vbi apostolis corpus suum com∣mendauit & sanguinem: seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicit cōmendatio memoratur. Nam intinctum panem alijs Christū prae∣buisse non legimus, excepto illo discipulo tantū quē intincta buc∣cella magistri proditorem ostenderet.* 1.907 But where they giue y^e dip∣ped eucharist to the people for the complement of the communi∣on, they found not this witnessed in the gospel, where Christ cō∣mended

his bodie and blood to his disciples. For the bread is commended apart, and the cuppe also apart. For we reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any others, saue onelie to the disciple, whom the dipped morsell declared to be the betrayer of his maister.

The replie.

The councill of Constance commaunded no new thing, but onelie made a law for the continual performance of that, which the church had practised long before.

The answer.

I say first, that thogh it were so practised before in some pla∣ces: [ 1] yet was that practise neither generall, nor approued by a∣nie setled lawe, vntil the late councill of Constance. I say se∣condly, that the great pillar of the popish church Thomas A∣quinas [ 2] honestly confesseth so much in this behalf, as is enough for the euerlasting confusion of all Romish hypocrites. And because I couet to deale faithfully in this point, as in al other; I will alleage the expresse wordes of Aquinas, as himselfe hath deliuered them: thus doth he write:* 1.908 Ex parte quidem ip∣sius sacramenti conuenit, quòd vtrumque sumatur, scilicet & corpus & sanguis, quia in vtroque consistit perfectio sacramen∣ti. Et ideo quia ad sacerdotem pertinet hoc sacramentum conse∣crare & perficere, nullo modo debet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine: ex parte autem sumentium requiritur summa reueren∣tia & cautela, ne aliquid accidat quod vergat ad iniuriam tan∣ti mysterij: quod praecipuè posset accidere in sanguinis sumptione, qui quidem si incautè sumeretur, de facili posset effundi. Et quia creuit multitudo populi christiani, in quâ continentur senes▪ & iuuenes, & paruuli, quorum quid••m non sunt tantae discretio∣nis, vt cautelam debitam circa vsum huius sacramenti adhibe∣ant; ideo prouidè in quibusdam ecclesiis obseruatur, vt populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solûm à sacerdote sumatur. In the behalfe of the sacrament it is meete that both be receiued; to wit, both the bodie and the blood, bicause in both consisteth the perfection of the sacrament: and therefore, because it belongeth to the priest to consecrate and to perfite this sacrament, he may in no case receiue the bodie of Christ without the blood. In the behalfe of the receiuers great reuerence and circumspection is

required, left any thing chance that may tend to the iniurie of so worthie a misterie: which might chance especially in the re∣ceiuing of the bloud; which if it were vnwarily receiued, might easily be shed. And because the multitude of christian people is increased wherin are conteined old men, & yong men, and litle ones, whereof some are not of so great discretion, to vse due warines about the vse of this sacrament: therefore there is a good prouiso made in some churches, that the lay people shall not receiue the bloud, but onely the priest. Out of these words [ 1] of Aquinas I note first, that he liued a thousand two hundred seuentie,* 1.909 and fiue yeers after Christ. I note secondly, that the perfection of the sacrament consisteth in both kinds; and conse∣quently, [ 2] that the communion of the lay people, is this day vn∣perfect [ 3] in the church of Rome. I note thirdly, that both kinds were vsually giuen to the lay people in Aquinas his time, & that the contrarie was practised onely in some few odde chur∣ches [ 4] apart. I note fourthly, that in his time yong childrē recei∣ued [ 5] the holy communion. To this I adde fiftly, that the pa∣pists can neuer shew any other alteration, betweene the dayes of Aquinas and their late synode of Constance.

The second obiection.

* 1.910Christ ministred the holy Eucharist in one onely kinde, to his two disciples in Emaus: for saint Luke maketh mention of bread onely, and not of wine.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that your own Iansenius granteth that this place is not meant of the eucharist,* 1.911 but was onely a figure thereof: & he proueth his opinion out of saint Austen, S. Bede & Theophi∣lacte. [ 2] I say secondly, that it is the vsuall phrase of the hebrew tongue, to tearme all kinde of meate by the name of bread; and so howsoeuer the place be vnderstood, drinke can no way be [ 3] excluded. I say thirdly, that if this place be vnderstood of the holy communion,* 1.912 yet wil it not confirme the popish practise by any meanes. For a singular act of Christ, who was aboue his law and not bound thereunto;* 1.913 cannot discharge vs from his ho∣ly institution, which he commanded vs to obserue.

The third obiection.

* 1.914S. Luke saith, that the faithful continued in the apostles doc∣trine,

and felowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers:* 1.915 where by the breaking of bread must needes be vnderstood the blessed eucharist; and yet is there no mention made of wine.

The answere.

I say first, that as it is true, that these Textes are to bee [ 1] vnderstoode of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud: so is it true also that both kindes were ministred therein. I prooue it, because otherwise the Apostles shoulde haue mi∣nistred the sacrament in one onely kinde; which yet no lear∣ned paipst will auouch. I say secondly, that the whole sacra∣ment [ 2] is figuratiuely signified by the breaking of bread; by the figure Synecdoche, which is frequent in the holy scripture, whē a part is named for the whole. Whosoeuer reiects this glosse, must charge the apostle with flat sacriledge. Yea, it is common with the fathers to vnderstand both the kinds, whensoeuer they speake of the holy eucharist, although they make but expresse mention of the one. Therefore Saint Iustine, after hee had made expresse mention of both the kinds, addeth these words; Alimentum hoc apud nos appellatur eucharistia.* 1.916 This foode or nourishmēt we cal the eucharist. S. Irenaeus hath these words: Quando mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei,* 1.917 fit eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Christi. When the cuppe mingled and the bread broken receiueth the worde of God, it is made the eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ. So S. Cyprian naming the cup onely, calleth it the eucharist.* 1.918 Which cup being giuē to an infant, proueth euidently, that in the primitiue church both kinds were thought most necessarie.

The fourth obiection.

It was the vse in the primitiue church to beare the eucha∣rist in one kind to the sicke,* 1.919 because there was great danger in carrying the consecrated wine. A sufficient testimonie hereof is the storie of Serapion.

The answere.

I say first, that most ancient approued antiquity beareth wit∣nesse [ 1] of both kindes sent and carried to the sicke and to such as were absent. S. Iustine the martyr hath these words: Diaconi distribuunt vnicuique praesentium, vt participet eum in quo

gratiae actae sunt panem,* 1.920 vinum, & aquam, & ad absentes per∣ferunt. The deacons distribute to euerie one that is present a portion of the consecrated bread, wine, and water, and they also carrie thereof to those that be absent. Againe he writeth thus; Distributio communicatióque fit eorum in quibus gratiae a∣ctae sunt,* 1.921 cuique praesenti, absentibus autem per diaconos mitti∣tur. A distribution and communication is made of those things that are blessed, to euerie one that is present: and the same is carried by the deacons, to those that be absent▪ Saint Hierome greatly commendeth saint Exuperius, for his singular zeale in this behalfe:* 1.922 these are his words; Sanctus Exuperius Tolosae e∣piscopus viduae Sarep••ensis imitator, esuriens pascit alios: & ore pallente ••eiunijs, fame torquetur alienâ omném{que} substantiā Christi visceribus erogauit. Nihil illo ditius▪ qui corpus domi∣ni canistro vimin••o, sanguinem portat in vitro▪ Saint Exupe∣rius the bishoppe of Tolose imitating the widow of Sarepta, feedeth others euen when himselfe is hungrie: his own mouth is pale with fasting, & yet it grieueth him to behold others fa∣mine: al his substāce he bestoweth on Christs members. None more rich then he; he carrieth our Lords body in a wicker bas∣ket, [ 2] and his blood in a glasse. I say secondly, that Serapion re∣ceiued both kinds,* 1.923 though in some thing different from Christs institution. For the bread was first infused into the consecrated wine, and so receiued: which manner of receiuing was a little corruption, though farre different from the popish practise, which altogether abandoneth the perfection of the holy sacra∣ment. This their owne Durand telleth them: and if they will not heare mee, yet must I request them to hearken to his words.* 1.924 Thus doth he write; Etsi in hostiâ consecratâ Christi sanguis sit, non tamen est ibi sacramentaliter eò quòd panis cor∣pus▪ non sanguinem; & vinum, sanguinem significat & non cor∣pus▪ Quia ergo, sub alterá tātum specie non est completum sacra∣mentum, qu•• ad sacramentum vel signum▪ debet hoc sacramentum compleri prius, quâm presbiter eo vtatur. Although in the con∣secrate host there bee the blood of Christ, yet is it not there sa∣cramentally:* 1.925 because the bread doth signifie the bodie not the blood; and the wine doth signifie the blood, not the body. Ther∣fore because the sacrament is not complete vnder one only kind

in respect of the sacrament or signe; this sacrament must bee first complete, before the priest vse it. Thus saith our popish Durand. Out of whose wordes I note to the great comfort of good christians,* 1.926 that the aduersaries vnwittingly are beaten with their owne swords. For though their doctour Durand, onely intend to make good the priests receiuing; yet is his rea∣son generall, forcible, christian, insoluble, & vtterly ouerthrow∣eth al communicating vnder one kind. Which hee proueth vn∣wittingly and vnwillingly, (such is the force of truth) by three reasons: first, because the bloud is not in the consecrate host sa∣cramentally: [ 1] secondly because the bread cānot signifie the blood: [ 2] thirdly, because the sacrament is not perfit vnder one kind. [ 3]

Now that to vse dipped bread in stead of the blessed wine, is a corruption; I haue already proued by pope Iulius,* 1.927 who telleth vs that none receiued dipped bread, but only Iudas the traitor.

The fift obiection.

In the primitiue church, the faithfull vsed to carie the bread home with them, that they might receiue it when they thought good, which is an euident signe, that then they receiued it in one kind at home.

The answere.

I say first that the custome the obiection speaketh of, was as [ 1] well of the wine as of the bread.* 1.928 For S. Gregorie Nazianzene writeth of his sister Gorgonia, that shee reserued for deuotion sake, some part of the signes of the bodie & bloud of our Lord, which she brought home from the church.* 1.929 Tertullian writing to his wife of this vse, maketh mention of the wine as well as the bread. And Saint Exuperius (as yee haue heard alreadie) carried both the kinds about with him to releeue the sicke and absent; which he would neuer haue done, if the laie people had not receiued in both kinds.

I say secondly, that this custome was not generall, but onely [ 2] vsed in some places of some persons rather of zeale then dis∣cretion; and therfore iustly abrogated by sundrie holy councils, Toletain and Cesaraugustain.* 1.930 These are the expresse words of these holy councels; Si quis acceptam à sacerdote eucharisti∣am nō consumpserit, velut sacrilegus propellatur, anathema sit. If any shall not eate vp all the eucharist which hee receiueth of

the priest; let him be excōmunicated, let him be accursed. Out of which words I gather that the lay people receiued both kinds in the church; but of a certaine zeale reserued some part thereof, which they carried home, to eate in time conuenient, as they thought. Which vse these graue synodes vtterly disli∣king, condemned as sacrilegious.

The sixt obiection.

Many councels make mention of the laicall communion, by which the lay people were distinguished from the clerkes. Which distinction coulde neuer haue bene, if both had receiued vnder both kindes.

The answere.

I answere briefely, that both sorts receiued the holy eucha∣rist in both kinds: but the difference was this: the priest receued before the altar, the clerks in the chauncell, the lay people with∣out; so that the meaning of the councels is this and no other, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that when the laicall communion was inioyned to the cler∣gie for penance, then they were to receiue in both kinds as be∣fore, but after the other clergie, and in a lower place with the vulgar and lay people. This my solution is grounded in these words of the Toletain councel:* 1.931 Sacerdotes & Leuitae ante al∣tare communicent, in choro clericus, extra chorum populus. Let the priests and the deacons communicate before the altar, the clerkes in the chancell, the people without the chancell. In which words is insinuated the distinction of communions by the locall distinction where the communion was receiued.

The second conclusion.

The priuate communicating in the popish masse, where the priest deuoureth vp all alone, is wicked, prophane and execra∣ble, as which is repugnant to Christs sacred institution, con∣trolled [ 1] by apostolicall tradition, and vnknowen to the ancient church following.* 1.932 I prooue it briefely: First, because Christ in∣stituted both kinds, & commanded al to receiue both kinds, and withall, because all present accomplished his precept. For as Saint Marke saith, they all dranke thereof.

Secondly, because S. Paul deliuered to al the Corinthians as wel the lay sort as the clergie, not only the forme of bread, [ 2] but of wine also; protesting that he had so receiued the same frō the Lord,* 1.933 and consequently that they ought in like maner to frequent that holy sacrament. And that all without exception vsed thus to do, is most euident by the course of holy scripture. For Luke writeth;* 1.934 The faithful continued in the apostles doc∣trine, & fellowship, & breaking of bread, & praiers: yea, it is so euidēt in the very canōs of the apostles (so highly magnified of the papists) that priuat masse was reputed an execrable thing in their time, as none liuing perusing their canōs seriously, cā without the note of impudencie denie the same. These are the expresse words of the tenth canon:* 1.935 Omnes fideles qui conueni∣unt in solennibus sacris ad ecclesiam, scripturas apostolorum & euangelium audiant. Qui autē non perseuerauerint in oratione vs{que} dum missa peragitur, nec sanctam communionem percipiūt velut inquietudines ecclesiae mouētes, conuenit communione pri∣uari. Let all the faithfull that come to the church in time of the holy mysteries, heare the scriptures of the apostles and the go∣spel. And if any shal not continue in prayer til y^e masse be done, or shal not receiue the holy communion;* 1.936 let them be excommu∣nicate, as those that disquiet the congregation. Thus did the apostles decree. In whose constitution we see plainly, that the apostles are so farre from approuing the priuat masse of the papists; as they would not permit any to be in the church, but such as did communicate with the priest.* 1.937 This is confirmed e∣uen by the popes canon law.

Thirdly, because all the fathers of approued antiquitie, doe teach vs the same doctrine. S. Chrysostome hath these words: [ 3] Ista videlicet & nunc ad omnes nos dicit,* 1.938 qui impudenter hic & improbè adstamus. Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est, impudens & impr••bus adstat. These things verily he now saith to vs all, which stand by impudently and wickedly. For whosoeuer standeth by and doth not communicate, he is impu∣dent & wicked. Oh what would this holy father say, if he were this day in Rome▪ and should see many hundreds standing by gazing, and the priest onely deuouring al? he would doubtlesse terme them, most impudent and vngratious people.

* 1.939Saint Clement, whose Epistles the papistes haue in great re∣uerence, writeth in these words: Certè tanta in altario holocau∣sta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debeant. Quòdsi reman∣serint, in crastinum non reseruentur. Let so many breades be of∣fered at the altar, as may suffice the people, (not only the mi∣nisters.) And if any thing shall remaine, let it not bee reserued till the morrow.

* 1.940S. Ambrose is consonant, and confirmeth Saint Clements assertion in these wordes: Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit, quia in vno pane omnes significantur. Per id enim quod vnum sumus, de vno pane omnes sumere oportet. For the oblati∣on offered belongeth to the whole people, because all are signi∣fied in one bread. For in that we are all one, we must al receiue of one bread.

* 1.941Durand, though he fauour the papistes all that hee may, yet could he finde no place for priuate masse. Thus doth he write; In primitiuâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererāt, singulis diebus communicare solebant, eò quòd apostoli omnes de calice biberunt, Dom▪ dicente, bibite ex hoc omnes. In the primi∣tiue church all that were present at the masse did euery day re∣ceiue the communion, because all the apostles drank of the cup, according to our Lordes commandement. Out of whose words [ 1] I note first, that in the primitiue Church none could be permit∣ted to be at masse, but such as woulde receiue the communion. [ 2] I note secondly, that Christes commandement tied all the peo∣ple thereunto. A plainer testimonie doubtlesse, cannot be giuen.

* 1.942Their angelical doctor Aquinas hath these expresse wordes: Nam in primitiuâ ecclesiâ quando magna vigebat deuotio fi∣dei Christianae, statutum fuit, vt quotidie fideles communica∣rent. Vnde Anacletus papa dicit peractâ consecratione omnes cōmunicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus: sic enim & apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Rom. tenet ecclesia. In the pri∣mitiue church when the faithfull were feruent in deuotion, it was decreed that the people should receiue the communion dai∣ly. Wherupon the pope Anacletus saith: when the consecrati∣on is ended, let all communicate, that will not be driuen out of the church doores: for so both the apostles ordained, and the holy Romaine Church obserueth. Out of these wordes I note

first, that all were driuen out of the church that would not re∣ceiue. [ 1] I note secondly, that it was the ordinaunce of the Apo∣stles [ 2] so to doe. I note thirdly, that as the same Aquinas saith [ 3] a little after, want of charitie and aboundance of iniquitie, made this holy ordinance to cease. Whereby it appeareth euidently, that christian zeale is decaied in the Romish church.

The 3. conclusion.

The popishe oblation of Christes naturall bodie in their masse, by which they ascribe remission of sins to the quicke and the dead, is blasphemous and iniurious to Christes holy passi∣on. I prooue it first, because the apostle saith, that we are sanc∣tified by the oblation of the body of Iesus Christ once. For if it [ 1] be true that S. Paule saith, that it is but once offered;* 1.943 it must needes bee false that the papistes say, that it is offered in their masses, ten thousand times in one houre.

I proue it secondly, because the apostle saith, that Christ hath [ 2] with one oblatiō made perfect for euer, them that are sanctified. For doubtlesse where one oblation doth make vs perfite and consummate; there need neither mo oblations,* 1.944 nor often itera∣tion of the same. Therefore the popish oblation of Christ to his father in their masse is blasphemous against Christ, as which maketh his oblation vpon the crosse vnperfect, and insuffcicient for our sinnes. I prooue it thirdly, because the apostle prooueth [ 3] Christes priesthood to excell the priesthood of the old lawe,* 1.945 for that Christ did take away sinnes by one onely oblation, which the priestes of the law could not doe with many. But doubtles this reason of S. Paul is friuolous and to no purpose, if Christ must stil be offered in the masse to put away sinne.

I prooue it fourthly, because the apostle saith, that as it is appointed to men, that they shall once die,* 1.946 and after that com∣meth [ 4] the iudgement; euen so Christ was once offered to take a∣way the sins of many, and vnto them that looke for him, shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation. Loe, Christ is no more offered before his second aduent, then men die before the iudgment, and yet euery child knoweth, that men die but once by ordinary course. I prooue it fiftly, because S. Paul saith that if he should often offer himselfe,* 1.947 as the high priest en∣tred [ 5] into the holy place euery yeare, then must hee haue often

suffered since the foundation of the world; as if he had said, hee can but suffer once, and therefore he is but once onely offred▪ Note this reason well, for doubtlesse it doth conuince.

[ 6] I proue it sixtly, because there is nowe no other thing in the holy Eucharist, then that which Christ gaue to his apostles at his last supper. Marke well my words (gentle Reader) and thou shalt with facilitie espie the blasphemous trecherie of the papists. For, if that which Christ gaue to his apostles in his supper, were his natural body sacrificed for the sinnes of man∣kind:* 1.948 then was mans redemption twise accomplished, then was Christ sacrificed before he died, then was mans redemption re∣ally done before it really began, then was hee dead before his passion, then was his body in one place and his bloud in ano∣ther, then was hee both liuing and dead at once, then was his death in vaine: for al these absurdities do follow perforce, vp∣on the forged propitiatorie sacrifice in the popish masse.

[ 7] I proue it seauenthly, because Christ himself said of his holy and bitter passion,* 1.949 that it was the consummation of euery thing needefull for mans saluation. But doubtlesse where one oblati∣on once made, maketh mans saluation perfit and consummate, there not only moe oblations, but also the iteration of the same oblation, is meere frustrate and needelesse.

[ 8] I prooue it eightly, because the Apostle saieth flattely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.950 There is not henceforth any oblatiō for sin. For if Saint Paul say truely, that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse; then doubtlesse the pa∣pists must needs say falsely, that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their masse.

I proue it ninthly, because if the sacrifice of the masse, were [ 9] the self same sacrifice of the crosse, but vnbloudy, as the papists dreame: then shoulde their masse sacrifice be of infinite valure, which yet no papist dareth auouch. This reason doth confound the papists, & therfore I wil proue effectually euerie part ther∣of. First, that it is the same sacrifice which Christ offered on the crosse, all papists grant being enforced with S. Paules words when he saith: With one oblation he made perfit for euer, those that are sanctified. Secondly, that it is not of infinite valure, our Iesuite graunteth in these wordes;* 1.951 Valor sacrificii

missae finitus est. The valure of the sacrifice of the masse is finite.

Now I prooue the consequution of my proposition, which is the third thing remaining; wherein resteth all the difficultie, if there be any at all. First therefore the sacrifice supposed to be in the masse, is the naturall body and bloud of the son of God▪ For otherwise it could not be the same, that was offered vpon the crosse. Againe, he that is supposed to offer the sacrifice dai∣ly in the masse, is Christ himselfe the sonne of God. Who (as the papistes teach blasphemously) held in his hands at his last supper, that selfe same body that was borne of the virgine Ma∣ry, and suffered the next day after. And yet if the valure of the sacrifice of the m••sse be finite, then doubtlesse that sacrifice can not be the sonne of God: for he is of infinite power, of infinite glorie, of infinite maiestie, of infinite valure. Yea, whosoeuer denieth Christes body & bloud, subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion, to be of infinite valure; hee is become a flat Arrian, beleeuing Christ to bee pure man, and not God. And consequently, howsoeuer the papistes thinke or speake of their masse, yet in making it a sacrifice they are blasphemous: and that must needs followe, though it were freelie graunted them, that Christes body were present really in the Sacra∣ment.

I prooue it tenthly, because our Iesuite cannot denie, but that [ 10] a reall destruction is necessarily required,* 1.952 in euery true & reall sacrifice. Wherefore, since Christ dieth not in the popish masse, it cannot be that he is truly sacrificed in the same. For as Bel∣larmine truely saith, Abraham did not truely sacrifice his sonne Isaac, because he was not really slain. Now that this discourse may be made more manifest, I will propound the strongest ob∣iec••ions for the aduerse part, and adde briefe solutions to the same.

The first obiection.

S. Paul saith, that Christ is a priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedech; and Melchisedech offered bread and wine,* 1.953 as he was Gods priest, saith holy Moses. To which we must adde that the thing figured is more excellent then the figure, & that Christ truely offered sacrifice in bread and wine: otherwise, hee shuld not haue exactly fulfilled y^e figure of Melchisedech. For al

the fathers graunt, that he was a true figure of Christ, euen as he was a priest.

The answere.

I say first, that Melchisedech did not sacrifice bread & wine, but as the Hebrew text saith, brought forth bread & wine; that is, sufficient victuals for the refection of Abraham and his soul∣diers, after their returne from the slaughter of Chedor-laomer, and the other kings. For the whole course of y^e scripture telleth vs, that bread by Synecdoche signifieth, meate. So Moses saith, that the Egyptians might not eate bread with the Hebrewes,* 1.954 that is,* 1.955 meate. In Esay 7. women say; we will eate our owne bread▪* 1.956 that is, our owne meat. King Dauid promised Mephibo∣sheth, that he should eate bread alwaies at his own table: which had been a very small reward of a king, if by bread were not sig∣nified all kinde of meat.* 1.957 King Iehoiachim ate bread at the table of Euil-merodach the king of Babel: that is, al delicate fare. So it is called bread,* 1.958 that Iobs friendes ate in his house, when it is certaine that they had right sumptuous cheere. The like ex∣amples are in S. Mathew, & sundry other places of scripture. This I note against the papistes, who fondly vse to answere, that bread was a slender refection for all Abrahams companie.

I say secondly, that Christes priesthood is after the order of Melchisedech, not in any sacrifice of bread and wine, which Mel∣chisedech can neuer be prooued to haue offered; but in y^t as man he was without father wonderfully cōceiued; as God, without beginning & without ending, & without mother woonderfully begotten:* 1.959 for which cause the prophet demaundeth, who shall declare his generation? in these points Christes priesthood dif∣fereth not from Melchisedech,* 1.960 who as S. Paule saith, was without father, without mother, without kinred, without be∣ginning of his daies, without end of his life, likened to the son of God, and a priest for euer. Yet in the oblation of bread and wine,* 1.961 the priesthood of Melchisedech was not perfitly distingui∣shed from the priesthood of Aaron,* 1.962 as the scripture witnes∣seth. S. Paul therfore describeth the priesthood of Melchisedech without the mention of bread and wine, in such sort as it is perfitly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron. So Euse∣bius Caesariensis comparing the priesthoode of Christ with the

priesthood of Melchisedech, doth not say that it consisteth in the sacrifice of bread and wine; but in the vnction, the diuine si∣militude, the eternitie, and want of succession. These are his expresse words:* 1.963 Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Hic autē Melchisedech in diuinis voluminib. sa∣cerdos fuisse Dei summi refertur, sed qui non oleo communi per∣unctus sit, neque qui ex successione generis suscepit sacerdotium, sicut apud Hebraeos fieri mos erat: & ideo secundum ordinem ip∣sius sacerdos futurus dicitur Christus, qui non olei liquore, sed virtute coelestis spiritus consecretur. Thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. And this Melchisedech is cal∣led in the holy scriptures, the priest of God most high: but one which was not annointed with common oyle, neither yet recei∣ued his priesthood by the succession of kinred, as the manner was among the Hebrews; and therfore Christ is called a priest after his order, who is consecrate, not with the liquor of oyle, but with the vertue of the holy ghost. I say thirdly, that Mel∣chisedech [ 3] in his action towards Abraham, shewed himself both to be a priest and a king: a priest, in that he blessed Abraham: a king, in that he releeued Abraham and his souldiers with bread & wine, that is, with al competent corporall sustenance. I say fourthly, that if there had bin any force in the oblation of Mel∣chisedech [ 4] touching Christs priesthoode; S. Paul, who handled euery least thing exactly in that comparison, would neuer haue omitted his sacrifice in bread and wine: and yet he passed it o∣uer as a thing of no importance. I say fiftly, that Christ offe∣ring himselfe vpon the crosse for the sinnes of the world;* 1.964 was [ 5] not a priest after the order of Aaron, but properly and truely af∣ter the order of Melchisedech. I proue the former part: First, because perfection could not come by the priesthood of the Le∣uites, as the apostle beareth witnes. Againe,* 1.965 because our Lord Iesus was of the tribe of Iuda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing at al touching the priesthood. Thirdly,* 1.966 because the sa∣crifice of the crosse was the most perfit sacrifice of all other,* 1.967 as which did cōsummate them that are sanctified for euer. I proue the latter part; first, because it must be after some order, but not after the order of Aaron as is proued: ergo after the order of Melchisedech. Secondly because the apostle doth in expresse

terms cal Christ a priest, euen after the order of Melchisedech. These are his words;* 1.968 And being consummate, was made the cause of eternall life to all them that obey him, and is called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchisedech. Lo, Saint Paule ioyneth the order of Melchisedech, with the sacrifice of the crosse offered for mans redemption: as if he had said; Christ is therefore called a priest after the order of Melchisedech, be∣cause he hath offered a most perfect sacrifice on the crosse. And indeede, as all priests were types of Christ the eternall priest, in whom they were accomplished; so al sacrifices were figures of the sacrifice of the crosse, and exactly accomplished in the same; & consequently, wherein soeuer the sacrifice of Melchise∣dech did cōsist, it was accōplished in the sacrifice on the crosse.

The first replie.

* 1.969Moses after hee had saide, that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, added forthwith these words; Erat enim sa∣cerdos Dei altissimi, for hee was the priest of God most high. In which words he yeeldeth the reason of his sacrifice, because as Saint Paul saith, euerie Priest must offer sacrifice. Wher∣fore he that denieth Melchisedech to haue offered bread & wine,* 1.970 must tell vs of some other oblation that hee made; for in the scriptures we find none else.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that your latin vulgata editio doth afford you some pleasure now & then, as by meanes wherof ye make some shew of truth; but the fountain, the original, & Hebrew text is other∣wise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he was the priest. And the reason aleaged in your latin translation,* 1.971 is void of al reason; for if Melchisedech must therefore offer bread and wine, because he is a priest; then must it folow perforce, that euery priest shal do the same; which yet no scripture doth auouch. Neither can any papist proue the same of Abraham, Cain, Esau, and others, who al were priests [ 2] as themselues confesse. I say secondly, that wee grant him to haue offered sacrifice, because Moses saith he was a priest. But hereupon doth it not folow, that we can disclose his sacrifice in precise maner.* 1.972 For though the scripture containe euery thing necessary to our saluation, yet concealeth it many truthes, as [ 3] nothing needeful for vs. I say thirdly, that if it be granted, that

Melchisedech offered bread & wine; yet wil it not follow,* 1.973 that Christ must do the same. For if Christ should offer bread and wine indeed, we should stil continue in figures, & remain with∣out the verity. But because the thing figured is more excellent then the figure, as the papists in this present controuersy tru∣ly do obiect; Christ who was to accomplish al tipes, al figures, al prophesies concerning his most sacred aduent, presented to God his father omnipotent, a most pure, holy, sufficient, inde∣pendent, & absolute sacrifice vpon the crosse, and then truly said consummatum est:* 1.974 I haue fulfilled euery thing that was written of me in the law & the prophets: and this hee did after the order of Melchisedech, while he did y^e night before sacramentally sig∣nifie the same, at his last supper in bread & wine. This my solu∣tiō (if it be well marked) is doubtles firmely grounded in these words of S. Cyprian:* 1.975 Nam quis magis sacerdos dei summi quàm D••noster Iesus Christus? qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit, & ob∣tulit hoc idē quod Melchisedech obtulerat i panem & vinū, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem. For who is more the priest of god most high, then our Lord Iesus Christ? who offered sacrifice to God the father, & offered the self same thing that Melchisedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and bloud. Thus saith the ancient, holy, & learned father S. Cypriā, whose words the papists euer alleage for their purpose: and yet do I thinke to confound the papists euen by the selfe same words. I therfore beseech thee (gentle reader) to marke attentiuely what I say. I note first out of S. Cyprians words,* 1.976 y^• as Melchisedech was the priest of god most hie, so was Christ also. I note secōd∣ly, that Christ offered sacrifice to god the father. I note thirdly, [ 1] that Christ offered the selfsame thing that Melchisedech offred. [ 2] I note fourthly, that that which Christ offered was both bread [ 3] & wine, and also his own body & bloud. Now out of these obser¦uations [ 4] I infer first, that the accidents and external forms of [ 1] bread and wine (which onely the papists wil haue to remaine in their eucharist,) are not the selfe same thing that Melchisedech offred. For that which he offred (as al papists grant,* 1.977 & euident reason enforceth them,) was really & substantially bread and wine. I inferre secondly, that that which Christ offered was his reall body & bloud sacrificed really on the crosse,* 1.978 and in the

eucharist sacramentally the selfesame that Melchisedech offe∣red. For the naturall bread and wine in the eucharist, is a my∣stery & sacrament of Christs body & bloud offered on the crosse. Thus is euery thing consonant that S. Cyprian writeth, and no otherwise can all that he sayth be verified. And in this sense do other Fathers speake of this theame; who affirme bread and wine in the eucharist, to be the mysterie of Christs body and bloud offered on the crosse, but not to be the reall and propitia∣tory sacrifice for the quick and the dead.

* 1.979Arnobius hath these words; hic qui per mysterium panis ac vini sacerdos factus est in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchise∣dech qui panem & vinum solus obtulit in sacerdotibus dum A∣braham victor reuerteretur de p••aelio. He that by the mystery of bread and wine, was made a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, who only among priests offered bread & wine, while Abraham returned from the battaile with v••ctorie.

* 1.980Theodoretus hath these words, offert verò ecclesia corporis e∣ius & sanguinis symbola, omne fermētum per primitias sancti∣ficans But the Church offereth the signes of his body & bloud,* 1.981 sanctifying all leauen by the first fruits. Marke this testimonie O Papist, and yeeld vnto the truth.

* 1.982Eusebius Caesa••iensis hath these words: quemadmodum ille qui sacerdos gentium erat, nusquam videtur sacrificijs corpora∣libus functus, sed vino solo & pane, dum ipsi Abraham benedi∣cit: ita sanè primus ipse saluator ac dominus noster, deinde qui ab ipso profecti sunt sacerdotes, in omnibus gentibus spirituale secūdum ecclesiasticas sanctiones sacerdotij munus obeuntes, vino ac pane & corporis illius, & salutaris sanguinis mysteria re∣praesentant. Quae sanè mysteria Melchisedech tanto antè spiritu diuino cognouerat, & rerum futurarum imaginibus vsus fue∣rat. As he y^t was the priest of the Gentiles, seemeth no where to haue vsed corporall sacrifices, but only wine & bread while he blessed Abraham: euen so our Lord and Sauior Christ, then the priests that came from him, executing the spirituall functi∣on of priesthood among all nations, according to the decrees of the Church, do represent the mysteries of his body and bloud in bread & wine: which mysteries truely Melchisedech knew long before by Gods inspiratiō, & vsed y^e figures of things to come.

Thus we see by the testimonies of these auncient Fathers, that the oblation of Melchisedech was accomplished in the sa∣crifice of the crosse, which Christ before did signifie sacramen∣tally, by bread and wine in his last supper.

The second reply.

The Fathers by you alledged, doe proue constantly, that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God most high; and not only brought it forth to refresh Abraham and his compa∣nie, as you defend.

The aunswere.

I say first, that out of the text can no more be prouided, but [ 1] that he brought forth bread and wine, for the reliefe of Abraham & his souldiers. I say secondly, that so much is cōfessed by holy, [ 2] auncient, & very learned writers.* 1.983 For Iosephus writeth in this maner: hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter ha∣buit▪ nihil eis ad victum deesse passus; simulque ipsum adhibitū mensae meritis laudibus extulit, & deo, cuius fauore victoria cō∣tigerat, debitos hymnos, vt sua pietate dignum erat, cecinit. A∣brahamus contrà de manubijs decimas ei dono dedit. This Mel∣chisedech entertained Abrahams souldiers, suffering them to want no competent foode; he also placed Abraham himselfe at his owne table, giuing him his condigne gratulation, & praysed God religiously, as became his piety, by whose fauour the vic∣tory was had. Abraham on the other side gaue him tythes of all that was gotten in the spoile. S. Austen is of the same mind,* 1.984 and hath these words: obuiauit Melchisedech sacerdos dei sum∣mi Abrahae reuertenti à caede regum, & protulit panes & vi∣num, & obtulit ei, & benedixit eum. Melchisedech the priest of God most high, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and brought forth bread and wine, and offered them to him, and blessed him. In these words of S. Austen, I note two things: the one, that the oblation of Melchisedech was not made to God, as the Papists affirme, but to Abraham himselfe in y^e way of refection. The other, that S. Austen nameth breads in the plurall number: as if he had sayd; Melchisedech brought good store of meat for Abraham and his souldiers.* 1.985 Tertullia∣nus hath these words: denique, sequentes patriarchae incircum∣cisi fuerunt, vt Melchisedech, qui ipsi Abrahae iam circumciso

reuertenti de praelio, panem & vinum obtulit incircumcisus. In fine, the partiarks that followed were vncircumcised, as Melchisedech, who being vncircumcised offered bread and wine to Abraham, that was now circumcised, when he retur∣ned from the battaile. Saint Ambrose teacheth the same doc∣trine, by the tradition of the Hebrews. These are his words: nec esse nouum,* 1.986 si Melchisedech victori Abraham obuiam pro∣cesserit, & in refectionem tam ipsius quam pugnatorum eius pa∣nem vinumque p••otulerit, & benedixerit ei. Neither ought it to seeme strange, if Melchisedech went to meete Abraham the conquerour, and brought forth bread and wine for the refecti∣on of him and his souldiers, and blessed him.* 1.987 Yea, your owne byshop Canus granteth all this. I say thirdly, that the fathers do indeede confesse Melchisedech to haue offered bread & wine; [ 3] neither do I denie the thing it selfe▪ in the sense of the fathers. But I denie, that either it can be proued out of the scriptures, or that the fathers admit your popish application thereof. And so haue I yeelded a sufficient answere,* 1.988 to all that is or can bee saide in this intricate matter, whereon you seeke to grounde your popish masse.

The second obiection.

* 1.989Euerie priest (saith S. Paul) is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sinne: there∣fore doubtlesse wee must haue some sacrifice in the new testa∣ment, and priests to execute the same; for without priests, gifts, oblations, and sacrifices to God for the sins of the peo∣ple, no person, no people, no common wealth can appertaine to God, neither can such soueraigne duties be done by any in the world, but by a priest chosen for y^e purpose. For diuers princes (as the scripture recordeth,) were punished by God; Ierobo∣ams hand dried vp,* 1.990 Ozias smitten with the leprosie, and king Saul deposed from his kingdome, specially for attempting such things.

The answere.

I say first, that S. Paul speaketh not generally of al the mi∣nisters of Gods holy word & sacraments, but of the priesthood of the old law; yea, hee speaketh especially and expressely of the hie priests onely, who was a type and figure of Christ Iesus,

the true, perfect, and eternal priest of God most high. I say se∣condly, that the people of the newe testament, want neither [ 2] priesthood, nor yet external sacrifice;* 1.991 for Christs eternal priest∣hood fulfilled and abolished the legall priesthood together with the law;* 1.992 and all legall sacrifices which were but figures of Christs sacrifice vpon the crosse, were exactly accomplished in the same; so that Christ being our eternall priest, and his sa∣crifice once offered being so perfect, as the vertue thereof endu∣reth for euer;* 1.993 we people of the new testament haue neither need of legall priests, nor yet of popish massing priests, who can ne∣uer put away their owne sins, much lesse the sinnes of others. For if we expect any other priest, or appease to any other sacri∣fice in the new testament; wee deceiue our selues, make fru∣strate Christs onely sacrifice, and doe great villany to his eter∣nal priesthood. I say thirdly, that though in the reformed chri∣stian churches, there bee no externall propitiatory sacrifice ac∣knowledged, saue onely the sacrifice of Christ vppon the crosse; [ 3] yet is there in the same the preaching of the word, and the ad∣ministratiō of the sacraments according to gods holy ordināce,* 1.994 which no man takes on him to execute, but he that is lawfully called thereunto. I say fourthly, that albeit in the preaching of y^e word & the administration of the sacraments, the chosen mi∣nister [ 4] hath onely the charge and authoritie to execute them; ne∣thelesse,* 1.995 Gods annointed prince hath the supreme charge and authoritie, to command the execution thereof, as also to pu∣ni••h the minister for neglecting his duetie in that behalfe. Of which point I haue spoken sufficiently, in my booke of Mo∣tiues. I say fiftly, that Ozias, Ieroboam, and Saul, were not punished for correcting the abuses or negligence of the priests, [ 5] wherein Go••s word giueth them supreme and soueraigne au∣thoritie, but because they intruded themseleus,* 1.996 and insolently executed priestly function, which God did flatly porhibite in his sacred word.

The third obiection.

S. Austen, S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose, & all the fathers generally, do vsually terme the masse or eucharist (the sacrifice of the me∣diator, the sacrament of the altar, the vnbloudy sacrifice, & the price of our redemption) whosoeuer denieth this must either be

condēned of malice, as speaking against his owne knowledge, or of meere ignorance, as not knowing what the fathers write.

The answere.

I say first, that it were a vaine contention to striue for the name, so we could agree in the thing. For as it is not material if we call the ministers of the new testament (priests,) so wee vnderstand rightly the thing it selfe; so is it not of importance, if we tearme the sacrament of Christs body and bloud, (either the Lords supper▪ or the Eucharist, or the cōmunion, or the li∣turgie, or the blessed sacrament, or the masse) if we vnderstand rightly, the thing signified by the same. For all these words (I know) are rightly vsed, by the ancient, holy & learned fathers. Where I note this by the way, that whether the word Masse be latin or hebrew, or what it doth properly signifie, the papists cannot yet agree among themselues. I say secondly, that the fathers indeede doe often call the Eucharist (Christs body and bloud, the sacrifice of the mediator; the vnbloudy sacrifice, and whatsoeuer else is due to the sacrifice of the crosse,) neuerthe∣lesse, they haue alwaies a godly sense and meaning in such kind of appollations; that is to say, they ascribe such names to the Eucharist, not because it is properly the selfe same thing that the word importeth; but for that it is y^e sacrament, the signe, & the memorial thereof; or else bicause it is spiritually the sacri∣fice of laude and thanksgiuing; for the proofe hereof, it were e∣nough to call to minde, that sacraments in the scripture haue the names of those things, whereof they ••e the sacraments. For Moses saith of the paschal lamb,* 1.997 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is the Lords passeouer, & yet most certain it is by the very text it selfe, that the lambe was not the passeouer it selfe, but only the signe and signification thereof; like as al sacraments be signes of the things which they do represent, but not the things which are signified by the same. And this I hope to make so plaine, euen by the expresse testimonies of the holy fathers, (where∣in the papists vse to glory beyond al mesure,) as no papist in y^t the christian world shal euer be able to answer me therein.

S, Austen hath these expresse words; Sacrificium ergo visibi∣le inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, i sacrum signum est. Ther∣fore the visible sacrifice is the sacrament of the inuisible sacri∣fice,

that is, an holy signe. And a little after, hee addeth these words: Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium,* 1.998 signum est veri sacrificij: that which men cal a sacrifice, is the signe of y^e true sacrifice. In another place he hath these words, with many other to the like effect;* 1.999 Cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium. Wherof he would haue the sacrifice of the church to be a daily sacrament. In another place he hath these words;* 1.1000 huius sacrificij caro et sanguis ante aduentū Chri∣sti, per victimas similitudinū prrmittebatur: in passione Christi, per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christi, per sa∣cramentum memoriae celebratur. Before the comming of Christ, the flesh and bloud of this sacrifice was promised by the sacri∣fices of similitudes; in the passion of Christ, it was restored by the verity: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacrament of memorie. In all these places S. Austen saith ex∣pressely, that though the Eucharist be called a sacrifice, yet is it not a sacrifice properly and indeede, but onely a sacrament, signe, and representation of Christs sacrifice vpon the crosse. For first he saith it is a signe of the true sacrifice: as if he hadde said, it is not the true sacrifice, but a representation therof. Se∣condly; he saith it is a daily sacrament of the true sacrifice: as if he had said, it is not y^e thing, but a signe of the thing. Thirdly, he saith it is the sacrament of memory; as if hee had saide, it is but a commemoration of the true sacrifice indeede. Fourthly, he saith that that which men call a sacrifice, is nothing els but a signe of the true sacrifice; as if he had said, though many vse to tearme the Eucharist a sacrifice, yet is it but the signe of the true sacrifice indeede.

Greg. Nazianz. who was Hieromes schoolmaister, & for his singular knowledge in y^e holy scriptures surnamed Theologus, expresseth this matter very liuely,* 1.1001 in these brief & pithy words Quo tandē modo externū illud sacrificiū, illud magnorū mysteri orū exēplar praefidenti animo ipsi offerrem? How shuld I offer to him with a confident mind that externall sacrifice, which is the example (or signe) of the great mystery? Lo, so soone as hee hath tearmed it a sacrifice; by and by he interpreteth himselfe, & calleth it the signe and representation of the sacrifice; as if hee had said: we vse to tearme it by the name of sacrifice, because

it is the image, signe, sacrament, and representation of the true and onely sacrifice.

* 1.1002S. Dionysius Areopagita S. Pauls disciple, in his ecclesi∣astical Hierarchy (which worke the Papists wil needs haue to be his) hath these words: Ad eorundem sacrificium quod signis continetur, venit, at{que} id quod à deo proditum sit, facit The B. commeth to the sacrifice of those things, which is contained in signes, & doth that which God hath appointed to be done. Lo, he calleth the eucharist a sacrifice, as the other fathers do: and yet for a plaine testimony of his right meaning, he addeth, that it only consisteth in signes. As if he had said: it is nothing else, but a significatiue or commemoratiue sacrifice.

* 1.1003Saint Chrysostome hath these words: Offerimus quidem▪ sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius. Sequitur: hoc autem quod facimus, in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod fa∣ctum est. Hoc enim facite inquit, in meam commemorationem. Nō aliud sacrificiū, sicut pontifex; sed idipsum semper facimus: magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. Wee offer I grant, but we do it for the remembrance of Christs death. And that which wee doe, we doe it for the commemoration of that which is already done. For hee saieth, Doe yee this in the re∣membrance of me. There is not another sacrifice, as there is an other Bishop; but we doe alwaies the same thing: yea ra∣ther we worke the remembrance of the sacrifice. Out of these [ 1] wordes I note first, that the Eucharist or christian masse (if a∣ny list so to call it) is nothing else but a commemoration of [ 2] Christes death vppon the crosse. I note secondly, and it is a point of importance) that the sacrifice is euer the same,* 1.1004 thogh the priest or bishoppe bee changed. I note thirdly, that where [ 3] the priest is changed, there can not bee that reall sacrifice, which was offered vppon the crosse: the reason is euident, because wheresoeuer that sacrifice is, there the priest is not chaunged, but is one and the same, euen with the sacrifice it selfe.* 1.1005

S. Basil hath these expresse wordes: Fac nos idoneos, vt tibi offeramus sacrificium laudis, tu es enim operans omnia in omnibus. Make vs meete to offer to thee the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing, thou that workest all in all. To these and

the like testimonies the Papistes can not possibly frame any true answer.

The reply.

True it is, that the sacrifice of the holy masse, is a signe and commemoration of the sacrifice of the crosse: but withall, wee tel you, that as it is the signe, so is it the thing signified also. Neither is that with vs anie absurditie,* 1.1006 as ye grossely & fond∣ly imagine. For Christ is the figure of his fathers substance, as the apostle witnesseth: and yet if ye deny him to be the same substance with his father, yee prooue your selfe an Arrian: so a loafe of bread in the bakers window, is both a signe of bread to be sold, and also the bread it selfe. But your dull heades, cannot conceiue these scholasticall distinctions.

The answer.

I say first, that how dull soeuer our wits bee, yet doe wee [ 1] well perceiue your opinatiue diuinitie.

I say secondly, which is a receiued maxime in the schooles, [ 2] that nullum simile est idem; no similitude is the selfe same thing whereof it is a similitude. For to be a relatiue and the corre∣latiue of the same, at the same time, and in the same respect, is flat contradiction.

I say thirdly, that though Christ be the same substance with his father, as he is God: yet is he termed the figure of [ 3] his substance, as he is man; because the diuinitie is hid in the humanitie, as vnder a figure or vaile.* 1.1007 So saieth the apostle in another place; For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the godhead corporally. And the same answere serueth to your loafe. For it is neither idem numero with the other loaues,* 1.1008 as you ima∣gine and affirme of your putatiue sacrifice; neither doeth the loafe of it selfe so signifie: but the people by the modification of the loafe, are brought into the notice of the sale of bread.

I say fourthly, (and this confoundeth you all, & your sottish imagination) that y^e veritie is more excellent then y^e figure; the

bodie, then the shadow: the thing signified, then the signe. For your owne selues labour by this means,* 1.1009 to prooue the sacrifice of your idolatrous masse. These are the wordes of your Ie∣suite Bellarmine: Figurae necessariò inferiores esse debent rebus figuratis. Figures of necessitie must be of lesse value, then the thinges that are figured by the same.

The 4. conclusion.

The Eucharist or holy communion (which the papists terme the sacrament of the altar) is a commemoration, representation, signe, or sacrament of Christes body & bloud, offered and shed vpon the crosse for mans redemption; but not the reall, substan∣tiall, and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus, which was crucified for our sinnes. This conclusion, that it may be exactly vnder∣stood of the vulgar sort, and euerie popishe conceite therein plainly discouered, and effectually confuted, shalbe prooued by way of certaine briefe paragraffes.

The first paragraffe, of the forme of con∣secration.

The papistes defending the bread to be made Christes natu∣rall body, by vertue of consecration; are at variance among themselues, and cannot tell in the world, which are the precise words of that their putatiue consecratien.* 1.1010 For the common opi∣on among the papists, (to which their practise agreeth) holdeth the consecration to consist in these words: This is my body. But their learned pope Innocentius, telleth them another tale; to wit, that Christ consecrated by the power of excellencie, which is not tied to the Sacramentes: and consequently, that hee first consecrated it, and afterward pronounced the words, which the other papistes will haue to be essentiall to the conse∣cration.* 1.1011 Iosephus Angles telleth vs very grauely, that this opi∣nion of Innocentius is not hereticall, although it cannot be de∣fended without great temeritie. But by our friers good fauour, if the wordes of the consecration be as they defend;* 1.1012 then must the bread perforce be broken, before it be Christes body; then did Christ breake bread, and not his body; then did Christ deliuer bread, and not his bodie. For Christ first blessed the bread, then brake it, then gaue it to his apostles, and after said, This is

my body. So that against their willes they graunt vnwitting∣ly; that that which Christ gaue to his disciples, was substanti∣ally bread and not his body. This point is handled more at large, in the 12. preamble in the booke of my Motiues.

The 2. Paragraffe. Of the validitie of consecration.

The papistes teache, that these wordes, (this is my body) doe change and transelementate the substance of bread,* 1.1013 into the substance of Christes reall, substantial, and naturall body: and that the bare formes of bread and wine, doe after consecration existe without any subiect. But this doctrine doth confute it selfe. For first, if the wordes of supposed consecration, doe worke transubstantiation; then must euery worde haue his due [ 1] operation in that kinde of worke. For otherwise, some of the wordes should be frustrate and needlesse, as which could haue no proper effect. And yet dareth no papist assigne any effect to euery worde, because it would follow thereupon, that Christes body should be made by diuisible partes.

Secondly, if the fourth word (meum) concurre essentially to [ 2] the consecration: then is Christes body either made by succes∣siue operation, which Aquinas and all learned papistes denie: or the whole effect proceedeth totally of the fourth word, with∣out the actiuitie of the other three. The sequele is euident,* 1.1014 be∣cause the prolation of the words is with succession, and not in an instant.

Thirdly, if the wordes of consecration, be of such force as the papistes teach; then must both Christes body and bread be vn∣der [ 3] the forme of bread at once; or els the forme of bread must for a certaine time, be aswell without the substance of bread as without the body of Christ. I prooue it, because as Christes body is made present vnder the forme of bread in an instant, so doth the substance of bread cease to be in instant:* 1.1015 and con∣sequently, since two instantes cannot be immediate, they must both either be togither in the same instant, or both absent for the time mediate.

Fourthly, the popish supposed transubstantiation, is very ri∣diculous and absurd. I prooue it, because when the priest saith, [ 4]

(this my bo) hee then either holdeth in his handes substantial∣ly bread, or corporally Christes body: if substantially bread, then are their wordes of consecration not of force: if corporally Christes bodie, these three absurdities doe insue. First, Christes body is made by succession: Secondly, the sillable (bo) which by it selfe signifieth nothing, is made significant. Thirdly, the last sillable (die) which is commonly deemed to accomplish their consecration, is become officiperda, redundant, and superfluous.

Fiftly, if the wordes of consecration be operatiue as the pa∣pistes holde, then if the priest chaunce to die in the midst of the prolation, Christes body shalbe left mangled and vnperfect: for otherwise, halfe of the consecratory wordes shall stand for cyphers, and haue no effect at all.

The 3. Paragraph. Of the impossibilitie of transubstantiation.

* 1.1016When two vnequall dimensiue quantities are placed togi∣ther, it is vnpossible for the conteined to bee bigger then the conteiner; but Christes body in the eucharist reteineth still the naturall dimensiue quantitie, Ergo it is impossible, that it bee conteined vnder the forme of a little round cake.* 1.1017 For the mani∣festation of this argument, I note first, that all learned men as∣well papistes as others, agree in this: that God by his abso∣lute power cannot doe those thinges, which implie contradicti∣on in the doing: the reason wherof I haue yeelded in my booke of Motiues,* 1.1018 in the 12. preamble. I note secondly, that it is es∣sentiall to quantitie, to haue one part without another, as the great philosopher Aristotle doth auouch. See the 2. part, book 2. chap 6. and note it well. I note thirdly, that the whole de∣mensiue quantitie of Christes naturall body, which he had here visibly on earth, and still retaineth in heauen, is togither with his body in the eucharist,* 1.1019 as all learned papistes graunt. And so by popish docrine, a body being foure cubites long and two cubites broad, remaining stil so long & broad, must perforce be conteined vnder another body, which is neither two cubites long, nor one cubite broad: but it is impossible, as implying flat contradiction.* 1.1020 When occupatiō of place is taken away from a

body, it then ceaseth to be, and is no body at all. But Christes body occupieth no place in the Eucharist, as learned papistes graunt: Ergo, Christes body is not corporally there.* 1.1021 And least any man distrust the proposition, Saint Augustine hath these expresse wordes: Cum ergò sit corpus aliqua substantia,* 1.1022 quan∣titas eius est in magnitudine molis eius; sanitas vero eius non quantitas sed qualitas eius est. Non ergo potuit obti∣nere quantitas corporis, quod potuit qualitas. Nam ita distanti∣bus partibus quae simul esse non possunt, quoniam sua quae{que} spa∣tia locorum tenent, minores, minora, & maiores maiora, non po∣tuit esse in singulis quibusque partibus tota vel tanta; sed am∣plior est quantitas in amplioribus partibus, breuior in breuio∣ribus, & in nulla parte tanta quanta per totum. Infra: Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt, & quia nus∣quam erunt▪ nec erunt.

When therfore any substance is a body, the quantitie therof is in the magnitude of the bignesse, but the health is not the quantitie, but the qualitie thereof. Therefore the quantitie of the body could not attaine that, which the qualitie could. For y^e parts being so distant, which could not be togither, because al seuerally keepe their spaces of places, the lesse lesser places; and the greater greater, there could not be in al the places seue∣rally the whole or so much;* 1.1023 but there is a larger quantitie in the larger partes, a shorter in shorter partes, and in no part so much as in the whole. For if spaces of places be taken from bodies, they shalbe in no place; and because they shalbe in no place, neither shall they haue any being at all.

Out of these wordes I note first, that euery quantitatiue [ 1] bodie, hath one part distant from another.

I note secondly, that the same partes occupie distinct pla∣ces. [ 2] I note thirdly, that two quantities cannot be in the same place at one and the same time. [ 3]

I note fourthly, that a greater quantitie must haue a greater [ 4] place, and that it cannot be conteined in the lesser.

I note fiftly, that no one part can conteine so much as the [ 5] whole.

I note sixtly, that when bodies are without places, they [ 6] lose their natures, and beings.

* 1.1024I therefore conclude, that it is impossible for Christs natural body to be contained in a little round cake, and his whole bodie in euerie little part thereof: all which the papists impudently and blasphemously do auouch. Guiliel. Ocham and Durandus, two popish doctours, do both subscribe to S. Austens reason. If it were possible for Christs bodie to be in diuers places at once;* 1.1025 the angel of God should haue made a foolish reason to the women, that came to see Christ in the sepulcher: for the angell prooued Christ not to be there, bicause he was risen. These are the words:* 1.1026 (Hee is not here, for he is risen as he said.) But if Christs body could bee in many places at once, as the papists would haue vs beleeue; then doubtlesse did the angel reason childishly. For the women might haue said: though he be risen, yet may hee be here also. Yet the angel (who was not to be in∣structed of the papists, but from heauen,) affirmed that hee could not be there, because he was risen. For he said not, Christ is risen, and is not here: but, he is not here, because he is risen. Lo, his rising, is the cause, that he coulde not be there. Marke this reason well, for it doth conuince. Peruse the twelfth pre∣amble, in my first booke of Motiues, and the first replie of the seauenth obiection in the first paragraph.

The fourth Paragraph. Of the originall of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is not onely repugnant to all philoso∣phy; but so absurd also in al christian speculation, as it was vn∣knowne to the church of God, and to all approued writers the space of one thousand & two hundred yeres, after Christs sa∣cred incarnation. For it was first hatched by pope Innocenti∣us the third of that name, in the council of Lateran, which was holden 1215. yeeres after Christ.* 1.1027 Yea, the determination of this synode was reputed of so little force, that the zealous pa∣pist and famous schoole-doctour Durandus boldely published the contrarie doctrine, euen after the flat resolution of the same councell. Whose doctrine doth so gall the papists, that the Ie∣suite Bellarmine, vnwilling on the one side to oppose himselfe against Durand rigorously: and on the other side, not knowing what to say in defense of the Romish synode, maketh as it were

this mitigation betweene them;* 1.1028 Itaque sententia Durandi hae∣retica est, licet ipse non sit dicendus haereticus, cum paratus fuerit ecclesiae iudicio acquiescere. Therfore the opinion of Du∣rand is hereticall, though himselfe may not be called an here∣ticke, because he was readie to giue place to the decree of the Church: thus writeth our Iesuite. Out of whose words I note first, that a man may steale an oxe, proclaime the same to the [ 1] world without any remorse, and yet be no theefe at all: for Durand held an hereticall opinion, published the same in print constantly, and yet (as the Iesuite telleth vs) was no here∣ticke for so doing. I note secondly, that Durand liued more [ 2] then threescore yeares after the popish Councell of Lateran.

I note thirdly, that he neuer retracted his opinion, notwith∣standing [ 3] the decree and censure of the popish Synode: and therefore vainely and without reason sayth our Iesuite, that Durand was willing to obey the decree of their Church: for if he were willing to obey their church heerein, how came it to passe, that he liuing so long after he knewe their Churches minde, did commit that to print wittingly and willingly, which is altogether against the same? for no man doubtlesse impug∣neth that by writing, which he doth approue at least so farre forth, as mans iudgement can haue place.

The fyft Paragraph. That the holy Eucharist is a figure and signe of Christes body and bloud, not the thing it selfe (that is thereby signified) corporally, but in a diuine and spirituall sort.

FOr the perspicuous explication of this Paragraph, I will vse certaine effectuall and distinct proofes; and that done, I will succinctly aunswere to such obiections, as may be made against the same.

My first proofe is grounded in the analogie of our christian faith: for first, Christ tooke our nature vpon him,* 1.1029 and that so really and truly, as it was like vnto ours in euery thing, sinne [ 1] only excepted. The former part saint Paul prooueth in these

wordes:* 1.1030 who being in the forme of God, thought it no robbe∣rie to be equall with God; but he made himselfe of no reputa∣tion, and tooke on him the forme of a seruant, and was made like vnto men, and was found in shape as a man. The latter part S. Peter proueth in these words:* 1.1031 for Christ suffered for you, leauing you an ensample that ye should follow his steps, who did no sinne, neither was there guile found in his mouth. And S. Paule sayth:* 1.1032 for he hath made him to be sinne for vs, who knew no sinne, that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him. Now our bodies are such, as they can not with one act be made to be in two places at one time, ergo the priests words can not make Christs body in a thousand places at once: for if he could so do, Christs body should be of an other nature then ours, contrary to the holy scripture.

[ 2] Secondly, Christ sayth: Ye worship that which ye know not.* 1.1033 God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and truth. Thus doth our faith tel vs, but the Pa∣pists say, that we must worship God in a round cake: that we must worship for God, that which neither we nor they know to be God: for if the priest either want intention to consecrate, (which often chaunceth by reason of wandring imaginations) or of purpose meaneth not to consecrate,* 1.1034 or of negligence o∣mitteth any one word of consecration; then by popish religion the thing adored is but pure bread, and yet do they worship it for the euerliuing God. It is therefore truely said to them, that they worship they know not what.

Thirdly, Christ must so be eaten of vs, as he abideth in vs, [ 3] (for to that end do we eate him, that he may dwell in vs) and yet is it certaine, that he dwelleth not in vs corporally, but spi∣ritualy by faith. The former part is not only euident in it selfe, but verified by Christ himselfe in these words,* 1.1035 he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him: the latter part S. Paule proueth in these words,* 1.1036 that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.

[ 4] Fourthly, Christ ascended vp visibly into heauen, and there must remaine til the day of generall doome, as our faith telleth vs:* 1.1037 therefore we must feede on him in heauen by faith, and not on earth with our teeth. For which cause, the auncient Church

exhorted y^e people before the communion, to lift vp their hearts vnto the Lord, as if it had beene said,* 1.1038 ye must not affixe your mindes to these visible creatures, but meditate on heauenly things, which are promised by y^e reuerēt & faithfull vse thereof.

Fiftly, S. Paul saith plainly, that the faithfull in the old te∣stament did all eate & drinke Christs body & bloud,* 1.1039 which they [ 5] could not do but by faith, because Christ was not then incar∣nate: and euen so do we eate Christ spiritually by faith, not cor∣porally with our teeth. To which effect grauely said S. Austen, vt quid paras ventrem & dentem? crede & manducasti.* 1.1040 Crede∣re enim in eum, hoc est panem & vinum manducare, qui credit in eum, manducat eum. Wherefore preparest thou a belly and a tooth? beleeue, & thou hast eaten; for to beleeue in him, is to eate bread & wine: he that beleeueth in him, eateth him. Thus saith S Austen, euen as their owne Gratian hath alledged him.

Sixtly, S. Paule saith, that so often as we eate and drinke [ 6] of Christs cup, so often do we shew his death till he come;* 1.1041 but doubtles if he be corporally present vnder the accidents of bread and wine, then is he already come: nay, more truely is it said, that he was neuer gone. For as S. Austen saith,* 1.1042 donec se∣culum finiatur, sursum est dominus, sed tamen etiam hic nobiscū est veritas domini; corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in vno loco esse oportet: veritas autem eius vbique diff••sa est. Our Lord is aboue vntill the worlds end, but yet his truth is with vs heere, for the body of our Lord▪ wherein he rose againe, must needes be in one place: but his truth is diffused euery where. Againe, the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee, hath these expresse words,* 1.1043 Secundum praesentiam quippe spiritualem nullo modo illa pati posset▪ secundum praesentiam vero corpora∣lem simul & in sole, & in luna, & in cruce esse non posset, For his flesh could no way suffer according to his spirituall pre∣sence; and according to his corporall presence, it was not pos∣sible for him to be both in the sunne, and in the moone, and on the crosse, at one and the same time. Againe, he saith in another place after this manner, Videte ascendentem,* 1.1044 credite in absen∣tem, sperate venientem, sed tamen per misericordiam occultam etiam sentite praesentem. Ille enim qui ascendit in coelum vt tolleretur ab oculis vestris, promisit vobis dicens, ecce ego vo∣vestris,

promisit vobis dicens; ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque in consummationem seculi. Beholde Christ ascending, beleeue in him absent, trust in him that is comming; and for all that feele him also present, by his secret mercie. Thus ye see the flat opinion of this graue writer, of this ancient father, of this holy learned doctour; his resolution is so euident, and so free from all obscuritie, as none can pretend ignorance that once read his [ 1] words. For first, he telleth vs that Christs naturall body must [ 2] needes be in one onely place at one time. Secondly, hee telleth vs that Christs naturall body can not bee at one and the same time, both in the Sunne and in the Moone, and on the crosse. [ 3] Thirdly, he maketh the same assertion plain, by comparing his corporall presence with his spirituall. For he saith, that the one may be in many places, but the other cannot; as if he had saide: Christs body may be spiritually in the sacrament, but corpo∣rally [ 4] it cannot be there. Fourthly, he proueth Christs corporal absence by the veritie of his ascension, exhorting vs to beleeue in him that is corporally absent,* 1.1045 and withal to feele his vertue, as he is spiritually present. How can he tel vs more plainely, that Christs body is spiritually in the Eucharist, but not corpo∣rally? It is not possible for any man, to yeelde a more sensible declaration: which if the gentle reader wil obserue attentiuely, it will minister to him a great light, for the perfect vnderstan∣ding of the whole mysterie.

* 1.1046My second proofe is grounded in the figures of the old te∣stament; for first, circumcision was called Gods couenant, and [ 1] yet was it not the couenant indeede, but a signe and significa∣tion thereof. For it is common to all sacraments, to haue the name of the thing that they signifie. That it was called the couenant,* 1.1047 it is cleere in these wordes, (This is my couenant, which yee shall keepe betweene me and you, and thy seede after thee: Let euerie man child among you bee circumcised.) And neuerthelesse that it was not the couenant, but the signe of the couenant,* 1.1048 it is euident by these words: (Ye shal circumcise the foreskinne of your flesh, and it shal be a signe of the couenant betweene mee and you.* 1.1049) The couenant indeede was this. To be Abrahams God, and the God of his seede after him; so saith the text.

Secondly, the Lambe was called the Lords passeouer, and [ 2] yet was it not the passeouer indeede, but the signe and repre∣sentation thereof. That it was called the passeouer,* 1.1050 it is cleare by these words of Moses: (For it is the Lords passeouer.) And also by these words of the Euangelist:* 1.1051 (Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the passeouer;) that is, the Lambe, which was the signe of the passeouer. Againe in these wordes;* 1.1052 (I wil keep y^e passeouer at thine house.) Again in these words, (And they made readie the passeouer.) In all which places the scripture speaketh onely of the signe, that is, of the lambe, and * 1.1053giueth it the name of the thing, that is, of the passing ouer. Now that it was not the passeouer indeede,* 1.1054 but the signe or fi∣gure thereof, it is euident by these words of holy Writ: (And the bloud shal bee a token for you vpon the houses where yee are: so when I see the blood, I will passe ouer you, and the plague shal not be vppon you to destruction, when I smite the land of Egypt.) Lo, the lambe was but a token and signe of y^e angels passing ouer them. And this lambe was a figure of our passeouer Iesus Christ, as he was really sacrificed vpon the crosse, so saith the holy apostle:* 1.1055 (For Christ our passeouer is sa∣crificed for vs.) This S. Iohn confirmed, when hee willed the Pharisees to behold the Lambe of God,* 1.1056 that taketh away the sinnes of the world. And in the Reuelation,* 1.1057 this lambe is saide to be slaine from the beginning of the world. Since therefore the scripture telleth vs so plainly, that the paschall Lamb was the type and figure of the true Messias, who was sacrificed to his father for the sins of the world: it shall not bee vnprofita∣ble to the Reader, to consider the allegorie of the rites which God appointed to be obserued therein.

The Type, Exod. 12		The thing signified.
1 The lambe was a memoriall of the deliuerance out of Egypt.	That is to say:	1 Christ deliuered vs from hell, sin, death, and satan, Gal. 3.13
2 The lambe was a sacrifice di∣stinguishing the Israelites from other nations.	2 Christ is the eternall sacrifice, who being eaten spiritually by faith, distingu••sheth gods faith full people from infidels, Ioh. 6.56.
3 The lambe was a true lambe of the flocke.	3 Christ was a true man, borne of the blessed virgin, Ioh. 1.14
4 The lambe was truely slaine.	4 Christ was truely crucified, 1. Corinth. 5.7. Iohn 19.30.
5 The lambe was not boyled in water, but rosted drie.	5 Christs body was inclosed in a new tombe, that had no wa∣ter in it, Matth. 27.60.
6 The lambe was killed at euen.	6 Christ was killed in the ende of the world, Hebr. 1.2.
7 The Angell beholding the doores sprinckled with the lambes bloud, passed ouer the Israelites.	7 God beholding our soules sprinckeled with the bloud of Christ, doeth not impute our sinnes to vs, Rom. 3.34.
8 The lambs bloud saued the Is¦raelites from common death.	8 The bloud of Christ deliuered vs from eternal death, He. 2.9
9 All the Israelites did eate of the lambe.	9 All the faithfull shall eate of Christ spiritually, Iohn 6.
10 Euery part of the lambe was eaten.	10 Euery mysterie of Christes incarnation must be beleeued, 2. Timoth. 3.
11 The lambe was eaten with∣out leauen.	11 Christ is eaten by faith with out hypocrisie, 1. Corint. 5.8.
12 The lambe was eaten wyth sowre hearbes.	12 We must eate Christ in bear∣ing his crosse, Matth. 10.38.
13 The lambe was appointed to be eaten with speede.	13 Wee must embrace Christes Gospell, with all expedition, Matth. 6.33.
14 The lambe was eaten of the circumcised onely.	14 Christ is onely eaten by faith of the regenerat, 1. Cor. 11.29
15 The lambe was without ble∣mish.	15 Christ was free from sinne, 1. Pet. 2.22.

THis passeouer of the olde law with other sacrifices and fi∣gures, which were but shadows of y^e Messias to come; are al wholy abolished by Christs sacred aduent. For Christ now readie to die,* 1.1058 and to offer vp himselfe as the true passeouer and veritie of all figures: made an end of the olde passeouer with a solemne banket, and instituting the Eucharist in stead therof,* 1.1059 commanded the faithfull to obserue the same for a memorie of his death and passion, vntil his second aduent,* 1.1060 which shall be in maiestie and glorie.

My third proofe is grounded,* 1.1061 in the phrases of the new testa∣ment. For Christ himselfe saide, that he would not henceforth drinke of the fruit of the vine, vntill he rose againe. S. Paul in like manner calleth it bread verie often, euen after the con∣secration. But if it had beene Christs natural bloud, and his naturall body, neither would he haue called it the fruit of the vine, nor Saint Paul haue tearmed it bread. Which Saint Paule maketh plaine in another place,* 1.1062 where hee hath these words: The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we that are many, are one bread and one body, because we all are partakers of one bread. Out of which words I note first,* 1.1063 that Saint Paule tearmeth it bread after [ 1] the consecration; or Christs blessing; or after the wordes of Christes institution, (which is all one in a right and godly sense.)

I note secondly, that he calleth it not Christs body, but the [ 2] participation of his body.

I note thirdly, that the bread he speaketh of is broken.

I note fourthly, that wee are all one bread and one body; [ 3] which annotations beeing ioyned together, I inferre first, that [ 4] [ 1] the bread is Christs body spiritually, and by faith, but not cor∣porally as the papists say. For Christs naturall body cannot be broken, as their own learned Canus granteth, and as verie rea∣son teacheth. I inferre secondly, that we are no otherwise parta¦kers of Christs bodie: then we are all one bodie and one bread. [ 2] And yet is it certaine, yea, no Papist can denie it, that we are but one bodye, and one bread mystically and sacramentally; Ergo wee are no otherwise partakers of Christes bodie then

mystically and sacramentally: that is to say, while we eate the sacrament of Christes body, wee are vnited spiritually to Christ by faith, and mystically one to another.

* 1.1064My fourth proofe is grounded in the vniforme consent of the ancient doctours of the church. For first, S. Clemens Alexan∣drinus hath these words: Nam ipse quoque homo, & vinum benedixit, cum dixit: accipite, bibite, hoc est sanguis meus, san∣guis vitis: verbum quod pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum, sanctum laetitiae fluentum allegorice significat. Se∣quitur: quod autem vinum esset quod benedictum est, ostendit rursus dicens discipulis: non bibam ex fructu vitis huius, donec bibero ipsum vobiscum in regno patris mei. For our Lord be∣ing also man blessed wine, when he saide: Take, drinke, this is my blood, the blood of the vine: the word, which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes, doth signifie allegorical∣ly the holie riuer of gladnesse. And that it was wine which is blessed, he sheweth againe when he saith thus to his disciples: I wil not drinke of the fruit of this vine, vntil I drinke it with you in the kingdome of my father. Out of these words of this holy and ancient father (who liued aboue one thousand, three [ 1] hundred, and eightie yeeres ago) I note first, that that which Christ called his bloud at his supper, was naturally wine, though his bloud sacramentally: for it was sanguis vitis, such bloud as the vine doth affoord.

[ 2] I note secondly, that these words (which is shed for many) are allegoricall, that is, they sound one thing in bare wordes, and signifie another thing indeede: as if hee had saide: The wine or liquor in the cup is not shed indeede for many, but is a sacrament or figure of Christs naturall bloud, which is in∣deede shed for our sinnes.

I note thirdly, that these words of Christ (I wil not drinke [ 3] of the fruite of the vine) were spoken after the consecration of the wine, and are to be vnderstoode litterally: and conse∣quently, that that which the Apostles dranke, was naturall wine, & not naturall bloud. Although I admit willingly, that it was bloud in a sacrament and mysterie: or to vse S. Cle∣ments phrase,* 1.1065 allegorically, which I wish the reader euer to obserue, as a generall rule.

Secondly, S. Hilarie writeth thus:* 1.1066 Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc vnū erimus, quia pa∣ter [ 2] in eo est, & ille in nobis,* 1.1067 We truely receiue the flesh of Christs body in a mysterie, and by it we shall be one, because the Father is in him, and he in vs. Out of these words I note [ 1] first, that to receiue Christs body in a sacrament or mysterie, is to receiue it truely, which I wish the reader to obserue care∣fully: for we do not terme the holy Eucharist, or Lords Sup∣per (bare bakers bread) as the Papists slaunder vs: but we affirme it to be sanctified bread, to be sacramentall bread, to be diuine bread; yea, to be Christs true body in deede, but sa∣cramentally, but spiritually, but mystically, as S. Hilarie truely sayth. And this answere will solue a thousand captious cauilles, which the Papists vse to make. I note secondly, that such as is our vnion by eating this bread, such is the eating [ 2] thereof. And consequently, since euery child knoweth that we are but mystically vnited, as we are the mysticall members of one body: it followeth that we do but mystically eate Christs bodie. And S. Hilaries reason maketh it plaine, when hee ad∣deth (because the father is in him, and he in vs) for neither doth the father dwell in him corporally (who is corpslesse,) neither corporally in vs.

Thirdly, S. Irenaeus hath these words: Qui est è terra panis [ 3] percipi••ns vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est,* 1.1068 sed eu∣charistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. The bread which is of the earth, after it hath receiued gods blessing, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist. And it consisteth of two things; the one earthly, the other heauenly. Out of which words I note first, that our communion bread is still [ 1] bread after consecration, though it be not common bread, but sacramentall and heauenly bread: for otherwise he would haue saide, (it is not bread but the eucharist.) He would (I say) haue reiected the name of bread, and not haue kept it still. I note secondly, that Christ is not present corporally in the Eu∣charist, because his naturall bodie is but one thing; which yet [ 2] should be the whole eucharist, if it were present, as the Pa∣pists grossely dreame. Besides this, his bodie hencefoorth is not terrestriall, but celestiall, glorious, immortall, spirituall:* 1.1069

yet withall,* 1.1070 it still reteineth all essentiall properties of a true body, euen as our bodies shall do after the resurrection. It is still circumscriptible, sensible, visible, tangible, quantitatiue, dimensiue, locall; none of which can possibly be found, in po∣pish carnall reall presence.

[ 4] Fourthly, Saint Chrysostome hath these words: Nam quan∣do dicunt,* 1.1071 vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse, & alia mul∣ta mysteria: haec afferentes ora ipsorum consuimus. Si enim mortuus Iesus non est, cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Infra: ita per sacratissimam istam mensam & saluat & docet: hoc enim caput bonorum omnium est: quare hoc Paulus voluit ac repetit: sed tradito iam mysterio, non bibam ait, de hoc genimine vitis vs{que} in illam diem, cum illud bibam nouum vo∣biscum in regno patris mei. Sequitur: ex genimine autem ait vitis, quae certe vinum non aquam producit.

For when they say, how do we know that Christ suffered, and many other mysteries; wee bringing these things ••owe vp their mouthes. For if Iesus were not dead, of whome is this sacrifice a marke and signe? So hee both saueth and teacheth by this most sacred table; for this is the head of al good things: wherefore Saint Paul meant this, and hee repeateth it. But after hee had deliuered the mysterie, I will not drinke saith hee, of this fruite of the vine, vntill that day, when I shall drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my father. And hee saith, of the fruit of the vine, which doubtlesse bringeth [ 1] forth wine and not water. Out of these words I note first, that the Eucharist is but a symbole, signe or figure of Christs [ 2] body. I note secondly, that that which Christ gaue to his dis∣ciples, and which he called his bloud, was true wine, the natu∣rall [ 3] fruit of the vine. I note thirdly, that Christ first had de∣liuered the mysterie, and then vttered the wordes of drinking the fruit of the vine. For the papists would gladly haue Saint Luke to tell the storie out of order, and that Christ spoke these wordes before the deliuerie of the sacrament, that is, be∣fore the consecration of the cuppe; which Saint Crysostome and other fathers doe denie.

[ 5] Saint Cyprian hath these words; Dico vobis, non bibam amodò ex ista creatura vitis, vsque in diem illum, quo vobis∣cum

bibam nouum vinum in regno patris mei.* 1.1072 Qua in parte in∣uenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit▪ & vi∣num fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. I say to you, I will not drinke henceforth of this creature of the vine, vntill that day, in which I wil drinke new wine with you, in the kingdome of my father. Wherein we find that the cup was mingled with our Lord offered, and that it was wine which he called his body. Out of these words I note first, that Saint Luke spoke of the [ 1] consecrate cup, when hee tearmed it the fruit of the vine: as is proued already, out of Saint Clement and S. Chrysostome. I note secondly, that the consecrate cup contained naturall wine, [ 2] and not Christs corporall bloud indeed. This testimonie doth conuince, and so effectually confuteth transubstantiation and the popish reall presence; as if S. Cyprian were this day liuing, and knew the blasphemous doctrine of the papists,* 1.1073 yet coulde hee not decide more plainely, the controuersie betweene them and vs. Yea, this testimonie of saint Cyprian may bee a generall rule for vs, as well to expounde himselfe in other places, as also the rest of the holy fathers. For when they tearme the holy communion or Eucharist, Christs bodie and blood, the bloud that issued out of his side, the body that was nayled on the crosse, the flesh that was borne of the vir∣gin, the price of our redemption; all this is truely saide in their godly meaning: that is to say, all this is truely veri∣fied sacramentally, mystically, spiritually, but not corpo∣rally as the Papistes teach. For all the Fathers ad∣mitte this doctrine of Saint Cyprian; that euen after con∣secration, remayneth still the true nature of bread and wine.

Sixtly, Tertullian being consonant to the other fathers, [ 6] hath these wordes:* 1.1074 Acceptum panem & distributum discipu∣lis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi ve∣ritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res quod est phan∣tasma, figuram capere non potest. Hee made that bread which hee tooke and gaue to his disciples to bee his bodie, saying this is my body, that is to say, the figure of my bodie, and there shoulde not haue beene a figure, vnlesse there

had been a true body indeed: for a vain thing which is but a fal•••• imagination, cannot receiue a figure. Out of these wordes I [ 1] note first, that y^• which Christ gaue to his disciples was bread. [ 2] I note secondly, that it was the figure of his body. I note third∣ly, that to be Christes body (as Christ himselfe and the fathers [ 3] speake;) is nothing els, but to be the figure or signe of his bo∣dy. For so doth this learned father declare the very phrase. I [ 4] note fourthly, that the thing figured is much different from the figure: and consequently, that Christes body cannot be the fi∣gure of it selfe.

Seuenthly, S. Theodoret hath these words: Neque enim signa [ 7] mystica post sanctificationē recedunt à sua natura.* 1.1075 Manent enim in priore substantia, & figura, & forma, & videri, & tangi possunt sicut & prius. The mysticall signes after the sanctifica∣tion depart not frō their nature: but they abide in their former substance, and figure, and forme, and may be seen and touched, euen as before. Out of these most golden wordes of this aun∣cient [ 1] and learned father, I note first, that hee writeth a∣gainst certaine heretickes, who held that Christes body was chaunged into his deitie after his ascension. And they prooued it, because as the bread and wine after consecration, were chan∣ged into the body and bloud of Christ: euen so was his body changed into his deitie after his ascension. This note is plain∣ly [ 2] set downe in the wordes aforegoing. I note secondly, that S. Theodoret confuteth the heretickes, euen by their own rea∣son. For the mysticall signes (saith hee) remaine still in their former substance and nature, euen after the sanctification ther∣of. As if he had said: ye lay not a good foundation, your sup∣posall is false, ye take that as graunted, which is flatly denied. For although the creatures of bread and wine be sanctified by Gods word, and accidentally changed into the mysticall signes of his body and bloud; yet doe they still retaine their former na∣ture and substance, yet doe they still remaine, truely bread and truely wine. I note thirdly, that though the bread and wine [ 3] haue gotten by sanctification, a new diuine qualitie; yet haue they lost nothing that they had before: for they haue the same nature, the same substance, the same figure, the same forme: they may be seene, tasted, and touched, euen as they might be∣fore.

All the papistes in Europe cannot answere this reason. For Theodoret prooueth against the heretickes, that as bread and wine are as truly bread and truely wine after consecration, as they were before consecration; euen so is Christes body as truely a body now after his ascension,* 1.1076 as it was afore heere on earth. So as the papistes cannot now say, that the bread and wine haue lost their true natures in y^e eucharist; vnlesse they wil also say, y^t Christ hath lost y^e nature of a true body now in heauē.

Eightly, S. Austen a worthy pillar of Christes Church, (as the papistes themselues doe graunt;) hath these wordes: Nisi [ 8] manducaueritis inquit, carnem filij hominis & sanguinem bibe∣ritis, non habebitis vitam in vobis.* 1.1077 Facinus vel flagitium vide∣tur iubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni domini esse com∣municandum, & suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in me∣moria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. Vn∣lesse saith Christ, ye shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, ye shall haue no life in you. Hee seemeth by these wordes to commaund to doe an heinous offence. It is therefore a figure commanding vs to be partakers of Christes passion, and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our mindes, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes. In an∣other place hee hath these words: Cum videritis filium ho∣minis ascendentem vbi erat prius, certe vel tunc videbitis,* 1.1078 quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intel∣ligetis, quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus. When yee shall see the sonne of man ascending thither, where hee was be∣fore; then doubtlesse shall ye see, that hee giueth not his body in such sorte as ye imagine: then shall ye truely vnderstand, that his grace is not consumed with the bit of the mouth.

Againe thus: In principio cauendum est, ne figuratam locutio∣nem ad literam accipias. Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apo∣stolus: litera occidit, spiritus autem viuificat.* 1.1079 Cum enim figura∣tè dictum sic accipitur, tanquam propriè dictum sit, car∣naliter sapitur. Sequitur: ea demum est miserabilis animae ser∣uitus, signa pro rebus accipere: & supra creaturam corpo∣ream oculum mentis ad hauriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse. Before all thinges thou must take heede, least thou vn∣derstand that literally, which is spoken by a figure. For to this

end is that which the apostle saith: The letter killeth, but the spirite quickeneth. For our wisedome is then carnall, when we vnderstand that properly, which is spoken figuratiuely. To conclude, that is a miserable bondage of the soule, to take signes for the things signified: and not to lift vp the eye of our minde aboue the corporall creature, so to behold eternall light. Againe thus: Possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum.* 1.1080 Non enim dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est cor∣pus meum cum signum daret corporis sui. I may also interprete this precept to be figuratiue. For our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe or figure of his body. Againe thus, Cum adhibuit ad conuiuium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis cōmendauit & tradidit.* 1.1081 When he admitted (Iudas) to the banquet, in which hee commended and deliuered to his disciples, the figure of his bodie and his bloud. Againe thus, Illi manducabant panem dominum, ille pa∣nem domini contra dominum. They ate the bread that was our Lord,* 1.1082 he ate (not our Lord, but) the bread of our Lord against the Lord. Againe thus: Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi sedentem ten••am? fidem mitte & tenuisti: parentes tui tenue∣runt carne, tu tene corde, quoniam Christus abs••ns etiam prae∣sens est: nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset: sed quoniā ve∣rū est quod ait,* 1.1083 (Ecce ego vobiscum sum vs{que} ad consummationem seculi:* 1.1084) & abijt & hic est, & redijt, & nos non deseruit. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo, maiestatem non abstulit mundo. Howe shall I reache vp my hand to heauen, that I may take holde on him sitting there? Reache thither thy faith, and thou hast hold on him. Thy fathers held him in the flesh, holde thou him in thine heart, because Christ being absent is also present: for if hee were not present hee coulde not be holden of vs; but be∣cause it is true that hee saith: (Behold I am with you till the end of the world,) both he is gone and he is here, he is retur∣ned and hath not forsaken vs. For hee carried his body vp in∣to heauen,* 1.1085 yet hee tooke not his maiestie out of the worlde. Againe, in another place thus: Secundum praesentiam maie∣statis semper habemus Christum, secundum praesentiā carnis re∣ctè dictum est discipulis, me autem non semper habebitis: Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis die∣bus,

modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. According to the pre∣sence of his maiestie wee haue Christ alway, but according to the presence of the flesh it was rightly saide to his Disciples; but ye shall not haue me alway. For the Churche had him in the flesh a few daies, but now she holdeth him by faith, she doth not see him with her eyes. Againe thus:* 1.1086 Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christ•• corpus Christi est: sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacra∣mentum fidei fides est: As therefore in a certaine sorte the Sa∣crament of Christes bodie, is Christes body; & the sacrament of Christes bloud is the bloud of Christ: euen so the sacrament of faith is faith. In these manifold testimonies Saint Austen prooueth aboundantly, that the popishe carnall imagined presence in the Eucharist, is blasphemous and most execra∣ble. [ 1] For first, he telleth vs that these words of Christ, (This is my bodie, This is my bloud,) must needes be vnderstood fi∣guratiuely. That is to say, that the bread and wine are but the sacraments, or figures and signes of Christes body and bloud.

Secondly, hee telleth vs that Christ is ascended, and that [ 2] therfore his bodie cannot be eaten with the bit of mouth, as the papistes teach blasphemously.

Thirdly, he saith that the soule is neuer in greater bondage, then when shee grossely and carnally taketh the figures and [ 3] signes for the thinges signified by the same.

Fourthly, he telleth vs, that since the signes of thinges be [ 4] vsually termed by the names of the things signified, our Lord doubted not to say (This is my bodie) when hee gaue but the signe of his bodie.

Fiftly, hee saith that the bread which the other Disciples [ 5] receiued, was our Lord, yet that which Iudas receiued was but the bread of the Lord. Which assertion is won∣derfull, if it bee well noted. For, if our Lord and maker bee present carnally, in fleshe, bloud, and bone, vnder the accidentes of bread; and that so long as the same accidentes remayne vncorrupte, as the Popishe detestable Faith a∣uoucheth▪ Then doubtlesse, Iudas shoulde haue receiued his Redeemer;* 1.1087 Then perforce Iudas shoulde also haue receiued, Panem Dominum: Then Iudas coulde not by

any possibilitie, haue barely receiued panem Domini: which yet S. Augustine affirmeth most constantly. For first, if it were true, that after consecration the substance of bread were tran∣substantiated into Christes naturall bodie, as it consisteth of flesh, bloud, and bone: and againe if it were also true, that the selfe same bodie remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted: then let all the papistes in England or els where in Europe, tel me how Iudas could receiue (panem Do∣mini,) but not (panem Dominum) as S. Austen saith: that is, how Iudas coulde receiue the forme of bread, with the fleshe, bloud, and bones of Christes organicall and naturall body h••d∣den vnder the same, and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe, and panem Dominum, as the other apostles did. Let them I I say, tell me this, and I promise to subscribe. If they wil not this doe, because they cannot, (for if they can doe it, all the worlde must thinke they will doe it;) then if the feare of God be before their eies, they will acknowledge the trueth that I now defend; which God graunt they may doe, Amen.

Sixtly, he telleth vs, that albeit wee cannot reache with our [ 6] handes, to Christes body which is nowe in heauen: yet may we by faith take hold vpon the same. Which is the flat doctrine, that the church of England this day teacheth of the eucharist. For we teach, that the eucharist is Christes true body spiritu∣ally and sacramentally, and that it is truely receiued by faith and spirite;* 1.1088 according to this doctrine of our maister Christ. The wordes that I spake vnto you, are spirite and life.

Seuenthly, he telleth vs, that as Christ is on earth still, ac∣cording [ 7] to his deitie: so is he in heauen til the daie of doome, ac∣cording to his humanitie. And that as he is present in his god-head till that time, so is hee absent in his manhood. For (saith S. Austen,) touching the presence of his fleshe, hee was but a fewe daies on earth. Yea, (say the papistes,) S. Austen lieth; and when he thus wrote, he was a sleepe, and so were the rest of the fathers, that hold as he doth. We affirme without scrip∣tures, fathers, rime, and reason, that hee is carnally present at the priestes appointment, in ten thousand pixes at once. More absurdly then this we say, that a mouse can catch Christes car∣nall body, carry it away into an hole, and there deuoure it with

her teeth. Of which blasphemous doctrine, the great papist Petrus Lombard▪ surnamed their master of sentences, knoweth not what to say or thinke; but being at his wits end what an∣swere to make, thus answereth the question without answere: for his answere is answerelesse, in these wordes:* 1.1089 Quid ergo sumit mus, vel quid manducat? Deus nouit hoc. What therefore doth a mouse take, when shee catcheth the reserued hoast, or what doth she eate? God knoweth this. Lo, is not this a graue answere, of the grauest father amongst our popish doctors? He is tearmed the master of sentences, and his bookes are publike∣ly read in their schooles of diuinitie, and so of the next authoritie to the holy scriptures. And for al this, so doubtfull and vncer∣taine is their faith; that when a mouse catcheth their accidents without subiects, he knoweth not in the world, what is become of their carnall reall presence.

Eeightly, he telleth vs, that the sacrament of Christs body [ 8] is not his body properly, but after a sort: and that sort he affir∣meth to be this, to wit, as the sacrament of faith is faith. Now euerie childe knoweth, that baptisme, or the sacrament of faith, is not faith properly, but improperly, figuratiuely, and by way of signification onely.

Ninthly,* 1.1090 Saint Ambrose (whom ••he papists thinke to make wholy for their side,) hath these expresse words: Si tanta vis [ 9] est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperent esse quae non erant:* 1.1091 quanto magis operatorius est, vt sint quae erant▪ & in aliud com∣mutentur? If there be so great power in the word of our Lord Iesus, that things beganne to be which were not: how much more is it workefull, that things bee which were, and bee changed into another thing? In these words, Saint Ambrose declareth the creatures of bread and wine, to remaine still in their proper nature and substaunce; and withall to bee changed into another thing, that is to say,* 1.1092 into the sacraments of Christs true body and bloud. To this our Iesuite Bellar∣mine answereth in these words: Non dixit vt sint id quod erant, tunc enim panis manere deberet; sed vt sint quae erant, id est, n••n annihilentur, sed maneant, quamuis mutata. Hee saide not, that they may bee that which they were, for then the bread ought to remaine indeede; but that they may stil be which were

before, that is, that they bee not annihilated, but abide still, [ 1] though changed. To this answere of our Iesuite I say first, that Saint Ambrose meaneth no other thing, then did Saint Aust••n, when he called baptisme the sacrament of faith. For the omnipotencie of Christs word, is required of them both in both sacraments. And as the water is changed into another thing, that is, to be a sacrament and ••ea••e of Gods fauor, which before was but common water: euen so bread is chaunged in∣to another thing, that is, to be the sacrament of Christs body, [ 2] which was before but common bread. I say secondly, that as a married man is by matrimonie cha••ged into another thing,* 1.1093 and yet keepeth still the nature of a man: and as a Bishop by orders is altered into another thing, and yet keepeth still his former substance: euen so the bread in the Eucharist is changed mystically, and still remaineth true bread. This is a good argument against the papists, who defend matrimonie [ 3] and orders to be two holy sacraments. I say thirdly, that if (aliud) must needes signifie an essentiall change, (as master Harding our Iesuite, and the rest will haue it to doe,) then either married men haue gotten nothing by their matri∣moniall contractes, nor Bishoppes by their consecrations: or at least all married men and Bishops haue lost the natures of men, and are changed into another substance. But as the Logicians tel vs, these three transcendents, ens, res, aliquid, may bee affirmed of whatsoeuer is: and for the order of Bi∣shops, the papists tell vs, that it imprinteth an indeleble cha∣racter:* 1.1094 touching matrimonie, Christ himselfe telleth vs, that it is an indissoluble band. Touching the persons themselues, experience telleth vs, that they are still as tru••ly men as they were before; and consequently, the word (aliud) may as well signifie an accidentall alteration, as an essentiall transmutati∣on. [ 4] I say fourthly, that euerie thing is truely denominate of it essentiall forme; and therefore if the substance and essentiall partes of bread and wine bee cleane gone, and the externall accidents thereof onely remaine, (as Bellarmine woulde gladly glosse Saint Ambrose; then doubtlesse may wee truely say, that they are gone which were before, not that they still remaine; vnlesse perhappes the papists will say, that the horse

remaineth, when nothing is left but his skin: and that a man liueth after he be dead. For in both more remaineth, then of their wine and bread.

I say fiftly, that by Bellarmines answere, if himselfe were changed into the essentiall nature of an asse, and kept still the externall figure of a man; yet shoulde hee still be as true∣ly [ 5] Bellarmine, as he was before;* 1.1095 and so Iesuits may be both Asses and men at once: a priuiledge granted to all others of their crew.

The first obiection

S. Austen alluding to the facts and wordes of Dauid,* 1.1096 by which Christ was prefigured, writeth in this maner: Manibus aliorum potest portar•• homo, manibus suis nemo portatur: quo∣modo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundum literam non inueni∣mus, in Christo autem inuenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in ma∣nib••su••s, quando cōmendans ipsum corpus suum ait. Hoc est cor∣pus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis; ipsa est hu∣militas Dom. nostri Iesu Christi. A man may bee carried in the hands of others; but no man is carried in his own hands. How this may be vnderstoode in Dauid literally we doe not finde, but in Christ wee doe it finde. For Christ was borne in his owne hands, when he commended his owne bodie, and saide: This is my body. For he helde that body in his handes; such is the humilitie of our Lord Iesus Christ. Thus saith Saint Austen. By whose words it is euident, that that which Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples, was his true, reall, & naturall body, euen that which was borne of the virgin Mary. For first, he telleth vs that Christ did that which Dauid could [ 1] not do; to wit, that he did beare himselfe in his own hands. Se∣condly [ 2] he saith, that this was done literally, euen as the words do sound. Thirdly, he cōmendeth Christs great humility in that fact. Now it is cleare, y^t if this could be vnderstood figuratiuely [ 3] it might be well verified in Dauid: for Dauid might haue born the picture, figure, or image, of his owne body in his hands: yea, this he might haue done literally, & haue shewed no humi∣litie

therin. But Christ did so beare himselfe in his owne hands (saith saint Austen,) as no man can do the like. This reason is inuincible, all protestants in the world cannot answere the same.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that this reason seemeth indeede to be inuincible, and so my selfe haue sometime thought.

[ 2] I say secondly, that if S. Austen should so meane, as you ga∣ther of these words; he should contradict himself in many other places, as is already proued; and consequently, his authoritie should be of no force in this behalfe.

I say thirdly, that Saint Austen doth a little after expound [ 3] his owne meaning, in these expresse words. Et ferebatur in ma∣nibus suis.* 1.1097 Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? quia cum com∣mendaret ipsum corpus suum & sanguinem suum▪ accepit in ma∣nus suas quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fideles, & ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret, hoc est corpus meū And he was borne in his hands. How was he borne in his hands? because when he commended his owne body and his blood, hee tooke into his hands that the faithful know,* 1.1098 and he bare himselfe after a sort when he saide, This is my body. Where I wish the Reader to marke well the worde (quadammodo, after a sorte:) for Christ had his true, reall, and natural bodie, in his handes after a sort, that is, sacramentally; when he said, This is my body. He had his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 body in his hands, but it was after a sort, not simplie: but sa∣cramentally, not naturally: but mystically, not carnally.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that neither Dauid, nor any other creature, coulde haue borne himselfe after this sort in his owne hands. For, (as Aquinas, Ʋictoria, Antoninus, Couarruuias, Bellar∣minus, and all learned papists grant,) no mortall man can in∣stitute any sacrament,* 1.1099 and so no mortal man being pure man, could sacramentally beare himselfe in his owne hands.

[ 5] I say fiftly, that greater humilitie coulde not be, then that the Lord of glorie should offer himselfe on the crosse, so to appease Gods wrath and to make attonement for our sins, and withall shoulde giue vs the sacrament of his body & bloud, as a seale of our reconciliation, and of his beneuolence towards vs. All

this discourse S. Austen confirmeth in another place, where he hath these words:* 1.1100 Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui me ••ru∣cifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui, spiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos. Yee shall not eate this body that ye see, and drinke that blood which they shal shed, that will cruci∣fie me. I haue commended a sacrament to you, which being vnderstood spiritually doth quicken you.

The second obiect••on.

S. Cyprian doth prooue this veritie, in most plaine and ma∣nifest tearmes. Thus doeth he write: Panis iste quem Domi∣nus discipulis porrigebat non effigie, sed natura mutatus, om∣nipotentia verbi factus est caro. The bread which our Lord did reach to his disciples, being chāged not in shape but in nature, became flesh by the omnipotencie of the word. Lo, bread was changed not in shape or figure, which our sense telleth vs to be so: but in nature or substance, as the catholike church teacheth vs. And how is it changed? euen into flesh; and yet wil not you haue Christ to be present, in flesh, bloud, and bone. But if it were otherwise, the omnipotent power of Gods word shoulde be needelesse: which yet Saint Cyprian saieth,* 1.1101 is it that wor∣keth this mightie change. If yee yeeld not to this testimonie, ye shew your selfe to be obstinate.

The answere

I say first, that the grosse and carnal sense of these words, did [ 1] wonderfully seduce my selfe when the time was.

I say secondly, that if Saint Cyprian meant as you woulde [ 2] haue him, hee should bee contrarie to himselfe. For hee af∣firmeth it to be true wine, which Christ gaue to his Apostles. I haue already alleaged his expresse words, peruse them and marke them well.

I say thirdly, that S. Cyprian can neuer bee more truely [ 3] expounded, then when his owne meaning in one place, is ga∣thered out of his owne words in another place. That therefore

all his words may be consonant one to another, we must ioine antecedent to consequent, former to latter, and one place to another. This done, wee shal finde with facilitie, that hee speaketh onely of sacramentall alteration: and that by the word (nature) hee meaneth natural properties. Yea euen so do the papists interprete the same word in their Gelasius, concerning this question nowe in hand. Thus doeth Saint Cyprian say immediately after the other wordes:* 1.1102 Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat diuinitas; ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia. Infrà: Nostra vero & ipsius coniunctio nec miscet personas, nec vnit substantias; sed affectus consociat, & confoederat voluntates. Iterum: & sicut panis communis quem quoti∣die edimus, vita est corporis: ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est animae, & sanitas mentis. Panem Angelorum sub sacramento manducamus in t••rris; eundem sine sacramento manifestiùs edemus in coelis, non ministerio corporali. And as the humanitie was seene in the person of Christ, and the di∣uinitie hidden; euen so hath the diuine essence powred out it selfe vnspeakeably, in the visible sacrament. For both ours and his coniunction neither mingleth persons, nor yet vniteth substances; but procureth fellowship in affection, and agree∣ment in willes. And as the common bread which wee eate daily, is the life of the body: so is this supersubstantiall bread the life of the soule, and the health of the minde. We eate here on earth Angel-foode vnder the sacrament; but wee shall eate the same more clearely without the sacrament in heauen, and that without help of the body.

[ 1] Out of these wordes I note first, that Christs diuinitie is after an vnspeakeable manner in the sacrament, but so is no•• his bodie or humanitie: and consequently, that Christ is not there, in inuisible carnall presence.

[ 2] I note secondly, that this sacramentall vnion doth not vnite substances, but affections and willes; and yet should our bo∣dies be vnited, if we receiued Christ corpo••••lly into our bel∣lies. But as the same Cyprian saith a 〈…〉〈…〉; Recipitur non includitur, He is receiued, but not shut vp in the sacra∣ment▪

I note thirdly, that this bread is spirituall, not corporall; the [ 3] bread of the soule, not of the bodie.

I note fourthly, that we eate Angell-foode here on earth, in the sacrament, and that we shall eate the verie same in hea∣uen [ 4] without the sacrament. Which assertion vttered by holy Cyprian, sheweth his catholique christian meaning so plainly, as all Papistes may be ashamed hencefoorth to alleadge him, for their late inuented carnall presence. In heauen there is neither accident without subiect, nor sacrament administred, nor yet any corporall eating and drinking there vsed. Angels foode is spirituall, not carnall; celestiall, not terrestriall; eter∣nall, not corporall: Angels neither eate by dint of tooth, nor by morsels in the mouth. Their nature is not capable of anie such actions. Since therefore our sacramentall meate, is the same that Angels now eate, and the same that our selues shall eate in heauen, where all corporall, carnall and fleshy eating ceaseth: it foloweth of necessitie, that it is meere spirituall; not corporall, fleshy or carnall.

The reply.

He saith, that the bread is made flesh by the omnipotencie of Gods word, to shew the vnspeakeable transmutation. There∣fore so soone as Gods worde is spoken by the priest, it is no more bread, but flesh indeede.

The answere.

I say first, as I said not long before; that it passeth the force [ 1] of any power vpon earth, to make common bread a sacrament.

I say secondly, that the alteration is vnspeakeable, when [ 2] the diuine power of Christ doth infuse it selfe into the hearts of the faithful by the visible sacrament, as by his ordinarie organ and instrument, and then and there worketh the diuine effectes signified by the sacrament.

I say thirdly, that whosoeuer wil peruse the whole treatise of Saint Cyprian De coena Domini, and doe it seriously with [ 3] iudgement and christian zeale, that man shal doubtlesse finde his meaning, to bee as I haue saide. For in an other place thereof he hath these words: Ideò ex consueto rerum effectu fidei

nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est visibi∣libus sacramentis inesse vitae aternae effectum, & non tam cor∣porali quàm spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri. Therefore the infirmitie of our faith being holpen by the accustomed ef∣fect of things, is caught by a sensible argument, that the ef∣fect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments, and that we are vnited to Christ, not so by corporal as by spiritual transmuta∣tion. And in the very ende of the tract he concludeth in this manner: Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acui∣mus sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus & partimur dum quod diuinum & quod humanum est, distinguimus & separa∣mus, itémque simul separata iungentes, vnum deum & hominem fatemur. Sed & nos ipsi corpus eius effecti, sacramento & re sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur, & vnimur singuli alter alterius membra, ministerium dilectionis pro inuicem exhiben∣tes, communicamus charitate, participamus sollicitudine, eun∣dem cibum manducantes, & eundem potum bibentes, qui depe∣tra spiritali profluit & emanat, qui cibus & potus est dominus noster Iesus Christus. So often as we doe these things, we doe not whet our teeth to eate, but we breake and diuide the sanc∣tified bread with a sincere faith, while wee distinguish and se∣parate what is diuine and what humane; and also ioyning the same things separated together, confesse one God and man. Our selues also being made his body, are knit to our head by the sacrament and vertue thereof, and are vnited particularly one an others members, exhibiting the ministerie of loue one for another; we communicate in charitie, we participate in so∣licitude, we eate the same meate and drinke the same drinke, which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rocke, which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ.

[ 1] Out of these wordes I note first, that Christ is truely pre∣sent in the eucharist, but yet after a spiritual sort, and not cor∣porall.

[ 2] I note secondly, that we are vnited to Christ spiritually by meanes of the sacrament, but not corporally. For as wee re∣ceiue Christ in the sacrament, so are wee vnited to Christ i•• the same, as by an ordinary instrument vnder him.

[ 3] I note thirdly, that after sanctification it is bread still as be∣fore,

and is broken and deuided: none of which can agree in∣deede with Christs corporall presence.

I note fourthly, that we eate not Christ with mouth and [ 4] tooth, but with a true christian faith.

I note fiftly, that the true and sincere faith, by which we [ 5] must eate the Eucharist, is to distinguish in Christ the huma∣nitie from the diuinitie, and to ioyne the same againe, confes∣sing one Christ to be true God and true man.

I note sixtly, that as we eate Christ in the Sacrament, so [ 6] are we made one anothers members: which can not be other∣wise vnderstoode, then in a mysticall maner.

I note seuenthly, that our sacramentall meate and drinke is [ 7] spirituall, which floweth out from the spirituall rocke Christ Iesus. For if the rocke be spirituall whereof we drinke, then doubtles the drinke it selfe can not be corporall, because as all Philosophers graunt, and as right reason prescribeth, qualis causa talis effectus, the effect is of like condition with the cause: neither can a corporall cause bring foorth a spiri∣tuall effect, nor a spirituall cause a corporall effect: where∣upon ariseth a great question among the Schoolemen, how hell fire can be materiall, since a body can haue no action into a spirit.

The 3. obiection.

Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes; Quod est in calice,* 1.1103 id est, quod à latere fluxit, & illius sumus participes. That which is in the cuppe, is the same that flowed out of his side, and wee are partakers thereof. But doubtlesse no christian can or will denie, that to be Christs true bloud indeede, which is∣sued out of his side vppon the crosse: therefore the same must be granted, to be vnder the forme of wine in the masse.

The answer.

I say first, that I graunt Christes true body and his true [ 1] bloud to be in the eucharist, but not vnder accidents with∣out subiects; nor corporally, and carnally, but in a diuine, spi∣rituall, and mysticall sort. Neither doth saint Chrysostome, S. Cyprian, saint Austen, or anie other ancient father, speake one word of your carnall reall presence, or once name your acci∣dents without subiects. No, they teach no other doctrine,

then that which I willingly imbrace.

Now that Saint Chrysostome speaketh of a mysticall pre∣sence, his owne wordes following within a few lines, shall witnesse the same with me.* 1.1104 Thus he saith: Et propter te frangi sustinet, vt omnes satiet; And he suffereth to be broken for thee, that he may satiate all. Thus saith this holy father. By whose words it is cleare, that hee meaneth Christ to be no otherwise present, then he affirmeth him to be broken. And if any papist wil say, that Christs bones are otherwise broken then in a my∣sterie; then must the same papist tell me, howe Christs body can be glorious and not mortall:* 1.1105 then must be tell me, how it chauceth, that I can not feele and see Christs bones and flesh. For so Christ prooued the veritie of his body to his disciples; Handle me (saith Christ) and see:* 1.1106 for a spirite hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me haue. Then must he tel me, to what end he sent the comforter in his steede,* 1.1107 if himselfe be still on earth a∣mong vs. For himselfe saith: If I goe not away, the com∣forter will not come vnto you: but if I depart, I wil send him to you.* 1.1108 Then must he tell me, how Christ is not alwaies with vs, since as they say, their round cakes do neuer wāt him. For himselfe saith: Yee haue the poore alwaies with you, but mee shall ye not haue alwaies. Then must hee tell me, howe acci∣dents can be without a subiect,* 1.1109 since S. Austen saith, that if qualities be takē from the bodies, they loose their being. Then must he tel me what scripture saith, that Christs body which was visible before his ascension,* 1.1110 visible in his ascension, and shal continue visible in heauen till his second aduent; is for all that daily and hourely in infinite popish cakes; and after an in∣uisible and insensible maner: then must he tel me, how Christs bodie being like to ours in all things,* 1.1111 sinne excepted, can ne∣uerthelesse be in many places at once: then must hee tell me, how Christs body is not a phantasticall body, as Marcion and the Manichees held: for Saint Austen saith, that Christs true body can be but in some one place of heauen;* 1.1112 Vbi (inquit) totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deum, & in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum. Thou must not doubt (saith saint Austen) that Christ is wholie present euerie where as God,

and in the same temple of God as God inhabiting it, and in some one place of heauen for the maner of a true body. Lo, this graue father telleth vs, that Christ as god is euery where; but in respect of his true body, he is only in heauen, and in some certaine place of heauen: Only in heauen,* 1.1113 because the scripture sayth, that he shal be there till the worlds end: in some certaine place of heauen, to declare the nature and veritie of a true bo∣dy. So then, if he were present as the papists would haue him, his body shuld loose the nature & veritie, of a true body indeede.

I say secondly, that Saint Chrysostome expoundeth his owne [ 2] meaning most plainely,* 1.1114 when hee saith that Christ in his last supper, gaue the fruit of the vine to his disciples. His words are before alleaged, and are flat contrarie to these other heere obiected, vnlesse they be glossed as I say.

The replie.

Saint Chrysostome in an other place confuteth your sophisti∣call answers, and deliuereth his meaning in so plaine tearmes, as no deniall can be made thereof. These are his words;* 1.1115 Non enim sufficit ipsi hominem fieri flagellis interim caedi; sed nos se∣cum in vnam (vt ita dicam) massam reducit, neque id fide solum, sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit. For it is not inough for him to become man, and in the meane time to be whipped & scour∣ged:* 1.1116 but hee doth as it were moulde vs into the same lumpe with himselfe; neither is this done by faith onely, but hee ma∣keth vs his owne body indeede. Lo, there is a further kinde of eating, then by faith onely; we are made his body really, and not onely by faith. And Saint Hilary saith the very same in effect. These are his words:* 1.1117 De veritate carnis & sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus: nunc enim & ipsius domini professione, & fide nostra verè caro est, & verè sanguis est. Concerning the veritie of his flesh and bloud, there is no place left to stand in doubt: for now as well by Gods attestation, as by our owne faith, he is flesh indeede and bloud indeede.

The answere.

I say first, that I do not denie Christs true and real flesh and bloud to be in the Eucharist; but I deny it to bee there in a fleshy, corporall, carnall, and sensible manner. In the

latter of which twaine, I onely dissent from you, and your late councell of Trent.* 1.1118

[ 2] I say secondly, that neither S. Hilary, nor yet S. Chryso∣stome affirmeth, Christes fleshe to be present otherwise then I graunt. Touching S. Hilary, hee hath these wordes a little before; Nos verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc vnum erimus. Wee truely receiue the flesh of his body, (yet not really or corporally, but) in a mysterie, and by this wee shalbe one. Loe, though we receiue Christes flesh truely, as I graunt; yet is it in a mysterie, not carnally or corporally, as the papistes hold. Againe, S. Hilary saith, we are made one by it; and yet is it cleere, that our vnitie is no other then mysticall: the papistes agree thereunto, it cannot be denied.

I say thirdly, that to eate a thing really, is not to keepe it a [ 3] while in our mouth vnconsumed, and then to put it out againe, as euery childe can discerne; and yet is this your carnall and reall eating of Christes body, ye can it not denie. For yee say, that his body is hidden vnder the accidentes of bread, and is only so long in your mouthes, as the accidents be vnconsumed and not eaten vp. That done, Christ is by and by gone from you. His body so loatheth your bellies; that it wil by no means come in them, or tarrie longer with you, then the accidentes do remaine. And when it is freed from those accidentes, neither doth any see it come out, neither can your selues tell whither it is gone. But the priest by speaking foure wordes, can bring it againe into his fist with a becke. Now I would learne of some skilfull papist, to what end so manie miracles are feined in your consecration. Is it to possesse Christes bodie? But alas, it is no sooner come then gone againe. Is it that Christ may dwell with you? but alas, he wil not stay. Is it because you are deligh∣ted with his presence. Alas it seemeth not; for then the ordinary meane were this, to keep your accidents long vndigested. And yet are ye so weary of keeping them, & so greedie of your din∣ners;* 1.1119 as I neuer heard of any, that kept them in his mouth till supper. Christ saith, that he will dwell with him that eateth his flesh; but that guest cannot truely be said to dwell with one, that is gone before dinner.

I say fourthly, that it is true which S. Chrysostome saith; to

wit, that we are indeed made Christes body, yet that is not done really or corporallie, but in a spirituall and diuine sort. And be∣cause none can expound S. Chrysostome better then himselfe: let vs seriously examine his owne interpretation. These are his wordes a little before, from whence this obiection is taken:* 1.1120 Quontam ergo ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, nullae teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus & oculis intellectus id perspiciamus. Nihil enim, ensibile traditum nobis a Christo, sed rebus sensibi∣libus: omnia verò quae tradidit insensibilia sunt Sic & in bap∣tismo, per aquam, quae re, sensib••lis est donum illud conceditur; quod autem in ea conficitur, regeneratio scilicet ac renouatio, in∣telligibile quiddam est Nam si tu incorporeus esses nudé ipse dona incorporea tradidisset tibi: quontam verò corpori coniuncta est anima tua in sensibilibus intelligenda tibi traduntur▪ ô quot modò dicunt, veblem formam & speciem eius, vellem vestimen∣ta ipsa vell••m calciamenta videre. Ipsum igitur vides, ip∣sum tangis ipsum comedis. Vestimenta eius desideras videre; ipse verò seipsam tibi tradidit non vt videas solum, verum etiam vt tangas, & in te habeas. Because therefore hee said; this is my body, let vs not stand in doubt, but let vs beleeue and be∣hold it with the eies of our vnderstanding.* 1.1121 For Christ gaue vs no sensible thing, but (spirituall things) with sensible thinges; and all thinges that he gaue vs, are insensible. So in baptisme, by the water, which is a sensible thing, that gift is giuen; but that that is done in the water, to wit, regeneration and renoua∣tion, is a certaine intelligible or spirituall thing. For if thou were incorporall, hee would haue giuen thee incorporall giftes barely, (and not hidden;) but because thy soule is coupled with thy body, intelligible thinges are giuen thee in things sensible. Oh how many now a daies say? I woulde see his forme & shape, I would see his garmentes, I woulde see his shooes. Thou therefore seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him. Thou desirest to see his garments, but he hath giuen himselfe to thee; not that thou maiest see him onelie, but also that thou maiest touch him, and haue him within thee. These are the wordes of this auncient father and learned writer: which I haue cited at large (though they be somewhat tedious,) because they are a∣ble to confound the papistes, euen in this argument which they

deeme insoluble, when due application shalbe made thereof.

I therfore note first, that all giftes giuen vs by Christ in his [ 1] sacramentes, are spirituall and to be receiued by faith.

I note secondly, that though the thinges giuen vs bee in∣sensible, [ 2] yet are they giuen in such things as be sensible: and the reason hereof is, because our selues are sensible.

I note thirdly, that as the gift in baptisme is incorporall, and [ 3] spirituall, euen so is the gift in the Eucharist.

I note fourthly, y^t Christ is so present, as he is seen, touched, [ 4] and possessed: but the papistes neither can see him, nor touche him, in their fondly conceiued reall presence.

S. Chrysostome therefore speaking of that kinde of presence, by which Christ is seene and touched; must needes vnderstand that spirituall kinde of presence, which we defend according to the Scriptures.

S. Chrysostome will yet tell vs his meaning more plainly, if it possibly can be done.* 1.1122 Thus doth hee write in another place; Quemadmodum enim verba quae locutus est Christus, eadem sunt que sacerdotes nunc quo{que} pronuntiant; ita & oblatio eadem est, eadem{que} baptismi ratio est adeò omnia in fide consistunt. For as the wordes which Christ spake, are the same which priests now pronounce, euen so is it the same oblation, and there is the same reason of baptisme, all things doe so depend of faith. Again in another place thus; Haec omnia carnalia quae mysticè & spiri∣tualiter intelligenda sunt.* 1.1123 Infrà: quid est carniliter intelligere? simpliciter vt res dicuntur, ne{que} aliud quippiam excogitare. Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur, sed mysteria omnia interi∣oribus oculis consideranda, hoc est spirituali••er. Al these things are carnall, which must be vnderstood mystically and spiritual∣ly. What is it to vnderstand carnally? simply, as the things are spoken, neither to thinke any other thing. For they must not so be iudged which are seene, but all mysteries must be considered with the interiour eyes, that is spiritually.

S. Bernard though hee were a monke and liued in the alti∣tude of popery, yet is he sincere as in many other thinges, so in this point of doctrine.* 1.1124 These are his wordes: Adest enim nobis etiam nunc carnis ipsius vera substantia, haud dubium sanè quin in sacramento. Adsunt reuelationes, sed & spiritu & virtute.

Infrà sed quomodo eum etiam nunc habet ecclesia, in fide & sa∣cramentis. For y^e true substance of his flesh is euen now present with vs: there is no doubt, but it is in y^e sacrament. We haue reuelations present, but in spirit and verity. But as the church hath him euen now in faith and sacramentes. Loe, we haue and receiue the true flesh of Christ, but in spirite and veritie, but in faith and sacramentes. This assertion of their owne beloued Bernard, is doubtlesse our constant doctrine.

The popish approoued glosse, teacheth vs the same doctrine.* 1.1125 For these are the expresse words therof; Coelesie sacramentum quod est in altari impropriè dicitur corpus Christi, sicut baptis∣mus improprie dicitur fides Infrà; coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi sed im∣propriè; vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significa∣ti mysterio, vt sit sensus: vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significa∣tur. The heauenly sacrament which is on the altar, is called vnproperly the body of Christ, as baptisme is vnproperly cal∣led faith. The heauenly sacrament which truely representeth Christes fleshe, is called the body of Christ, but improperly. Whereupon he saith (suo modo, after it owne maner,) but not in the trueth of the thing, but in the mysterie of that which is signified; that this be the sense: it is called Christes body; that is to say, it is the signe of Christes body.

The 4. obiection.

Christ saith plainly, this is my body; and not, this is a signe, or this doth signifie my body. Hee meant nothing lesse, then to vse tropes and figures, in the institution of this holy sacrament.

The answere.

I say first, that the case is so plaine, as no papist in Europe [ 1] can deny, that Christ vsed a trope or figure in the institution of this sacrament. For these are the words of the institution;* 1.1126 This cup is the newe testament in my bloud. In which wordes the trope or figure called Metonymia, doth twise occurre. For first, the cup doth figuratiuely signifie, the liquour in the cup. Again, the cup is called the testament; and yet it is but the figure or signe of the testament.

I say secondly, that y^e figure (Metonymie,) is very frequent. [ 2]

in the holy scripture, aswell in the old as in the new testament. In the old testament we haue these examples; this is the passe∣ouer.* 1.1127 That is, this doth signifie the passeouer. Againe, this is my couenant; that is to say, this doth signifie my couenant; or, this is a signe of my couenant.* 1.1128 Againe, the 7. good kine are 7. yeares, and the seuen good eares are seuen yeares. Againe, the the seuen thinne and euill fauoured kine,* 1.1129 are seuen yeares. A∣gaine, the seuen emptie eares, blasted with the East-wind, are seuen yeares of famine. In all which places, the figure (Meto∣nymia) is vsed. For neither the kine nor the eares were the seeuen yeares, as euery childe knoweth: but they did signifie the yeares to come, they were a signe and figure thereof.

In the newe testament, we haue these examples. I am the vine.* 1.1130 Againe, I am a doore. Againe, My father is an husband∣man. Againe, The seed is the word of God. Againe, We that are manie, are one bread. Againe, The rocke was Christ. A∣gaine,* 1.1131 The lyon which is of the tribe of Iuda, the root of Da∣uid, hath obteined to open the booke. In which places, Christ neither was the vine, nor the rocke, nor the lyon: neither was the seed the word of God, neither was God the father an hus∣bandman, neither are the fathfull one bread: but al these things are figuratiuely spoken, by the vsuall custome of the holy Scripture.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that not only the ancient fathers, but euen the papistes also haue acknowledged this figure: their words and testimonies are alreadie cited.

I say fourthly, that the verie wordes of institution are figu∣ratiue: [ 4] which thing is so plaine as euerie child may perceiue the same.* 1.1132 For thus saith S. Luke: This cup is the newe Testa∣ment in my bloud, which is shed for you. Where, I am well assured, euerie papist small and great, will confesse with me, that the cup by the figure (metonymia,) is taken for the liquour in the cup. And so against their will, they are enforced to ac∣knowledge a figure, euen there where they so obstinately denie a figure.

The fift obiection.

* 1.1133The Prophet Malachie hath such a plaine testimonie for the reall presence and sacrifice of the altar, as it can neuer be aun∣swered

till the worldes end. These are the wordes: In euery place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering. These wordes of the Prophet being effectually applied, will confound the respondent whatsoeuer hee shall answere. For first, the prophet speaketh of the oblatiō of the new testament, [ 1] as your selues cannot deny. Secondly, the prophet saith, that [ 2] this oblation must be in euery place, and so it cannot be vnder∣stoode of Christs bodie offered vpon the crosse: for that obla∣tion was but in one place, euen without the walles of Ierusa∣lem. Thirdly, it cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of praise [ 3] & thanksgiuing: bicause whatsoeuer proceedeth from vs, is im∣pure & polluted. Yea, as an other prophet saith;* 1.1134 Al our righte∣ousnes is as filthie clouts: and so no oblation that is ours, can be pure. Therefore he speaketh of Christs body offered in the masse, which is a pure oblation indeede.

The answere.

I answere to this insoluble so supposed argument, that the prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing. And I prooue it by the flat testimonies of the holy Fathers.

Saint Irenaeus hath these wordes;* 1.1135 In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Io∣annes in Apocalypsi, orationes esse ait sanctorum. Incense is offered to my name in euery place, and a pure sacrifice: and Saint Iohn in the Reuelation saith, that this incense is the prayers of the Saints.

Saint Theodoretus doeth expound this place after the same maner, in his Commentaries vpon the same text.* 1.1136

Saint Hierome hath these wordes; Sed thymiama, hoc est,* 1.1137 sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas: & non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaeâ, nec in vna Iudaeae vrbe Hierusalem, sed in omni loco offerri oblationem. But incense, that is, the prayers of saints must be offered to the Lord: and that not in Iudea one onely prouince of the world, neither in Ierusalem one on∣lie citie thereof, but in euery place must an oblation be made.

Now where it is said, that al our actions be impure and pol∣luted: I answere, that that is true indeed, when our actions be examined in rigour of iustice. But not so, when we are clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus, and haue washed our sins in his bloud, for whose sake God doth not impute our polluti∣tions, and filth vnto vs. Not so, when God dealeth with vs according to mercie. Not so, when God accepteth our sinfull and imperfect acts, as pure, iust, and innocent. For our owne vnworthienesse,* 1.1138 the Prophet desired God not to enter into iudgement with his seruants:* 1.1139 but for Christs righteousnesse the Apostle pronounceth vs free from condemnation. For though our sinnes be red as scarlet,* 1.1140 yet so soone as they be wa∣shed in the bloud of the immaculate Lambe, they become (by acceptation) as white as snow.* 1.1141

This whole discourse Saint Augustine handleth finely, in these golden wordes;* 1.1142 Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Woe euen to the laudable life of men, if thou examine it thy mercie set a part. And in this sense, the obiection taketh place. Neuertheles, god of his great mercie, doth accept our works as iust and pure, through faith in Christ Iesus our sweet redeemer,* 1.1143 for whose sake he doth not impute our sins to vs. So saith the Apostle; not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee haue done, but according to his mercie hath he saued vs, by the washing of the new birth, & the renewing of the holy Ghost. So saith S. Iohn; These are they which came out of great tribulation, and haue washed their long robes,* 1.1144 & haue made them white in the bloud of the lamb, through the merits of which lambe our prayers and works are reputed pure. Therefore saith Saint Paul, I will therefore that the men pray euery where, lifting vp pure hands without wrath or doubting.* 1.1145

The 6. obiection.

If the words of consecration be trophicall and figuratiue, so as there is but a bare signe of Christs body and bloud: then shall our sacraments of the newe Testament, bee no better then the sacraments of the old.* 1.1146 The reason is euident, because they did signifie Christs death and passion, euen as ours do, and

yet is it cleare by the scriptures, that we haue the verity, wher∣of they had but the figure onely.

The answere.

I say first, that our sacraments excell the olde sundry waies: [ 1] first, because they are immutable, and shall not bee altered till the worlds end. Againe, because they represent y^• things done,* 1.1147 which by the olde were but prefigured to be done. Thirdly, be∣cause they are more manifest, and so doe excite our faith the more. Fourthly, because they pertaine to all nations, whereas the other belonged to the people of the Iewes onely.

I say secondly, that the Papists falsely accuse vs, when they [ 2] say, that we make the holy eucharist, a bare signe of Christs bo∣dy and bloud. For we grant and teach, that together with the sacramentall bread and wine, wee receiue Christs reall body and blood in a spirituall manner; that is to say, when wee re∣ceiue these sacraments by faith, then Christs spirit dwelleth in vs, and we are vnited to his body as members to the head, and branches to the vine, from which head, wee continually draw nourishment, spirit, and life. For then, as the Apostle writeth,* 1.1148 Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith, which effect can ne∣uer be had by popish doctrine; because by it, their accidents void of subiects, are no sooner deuoured, but Christs body forthwith departeth out of their mouths. And if thou aske, whither: they answer, they cannot tell.

The seauenth obiection.

Hee that eateth Christs body vnworthily (saith S. Paul) is made guiltie of Christs body:* 1.1149 which punishment doubtlesse should neuer be imposed, for eating a peece of bakers bread.

The answere.

I say first, that it far surmounteth bakers bread, as is more [ 1] then once concluded sufficiently. I say secondly, that it is no ab∣surdity, [ 2] to grant a man to be guilty of that euē by eating, wher∣of he eateth not at all: at least wereof he eateth not in such ma∣ner, as hee is gultie by his eating. For first,* 1.1150 Adam was guiltie of disobeying Gods diuine maiestie, and that by reason of eating: Neuerthelesse hee ate not Gods maiestie,* 1.1151 but an apple. Secondly, euery glutton is guilty of irreuerence against God, and that by reason of his eating: and for all that he eateth

not Gods substance, but his creatures. The like may be saide * 1.1152of euerie drunkard, and many other malefactors. I say third∣ly, that the wicked eate Christs body sacramentally, which is as sufficient a cause of condemnation, as the eating of an apple.

The replie.

* 1.1153Adam was condemned not simply for eating, but for eating with disobedience. Ergo the case is not like.

The answere.

I answer, that euen so are not the wicked condemned for eat∣ing the sacrament simply,* 1.1154 but for eating it with disobedience. For the apostle commandeth euery one to examine him self be∣fore he eate;* 1.1155 and in another place he commandeth vs to referre all our acts to Gods glorie.

The seauenth obiection.

It is not impossible for two bodyes to be in one place at once, Ergo neither is it impossible for Christs bodie to bee in many places at once. I proue it, because there is the same difficulty in both.

The answere.

I grant, that one body may as well bee in many places at once, as diuers bodyes in the same place at once. But withall, I affirme them both to be impossible.

The first replie.

The holy Scripture telleth vs, that all things are possible to God: it also hath discouered the possibilitie of this particular case, by many fold examples. For first, Christs owne glori∣fied bodie,* 1.1156 was at once in the same place with the doores. Se∣condly, Christs body and the stone of the sepulcher, were both in the same place at one time. Thirdly, God can bring a camel through a needles eie, euen continuing in his naturall figure & quantitie stil. For as Christ himselfe saith, God can do both this and al other things. Fourthly, Christ came out of his mo∣thers wombe, the clausure being whole and not stirred; for so saith Saint Austen.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that god can do much more then mans reason can conceiue, because the dulnesse of mans vnderstanding, is not a∣ble to penetrate the bottomelesse deepenesse of his heauenly

wisedome, & power diuine. I say secondly, that it is one thing [ 2] to speake of things which God can do; another thing to speake of those things that he wil do. For we are assured by his reuea∣led will, that as God can do al things which he wil;* 1.1157 so are there many things which he cānot do, or rather which he wil not do, because they cannot indeed be done. And these things are of 2. sorts: the one sort containeth imperfection, the other implieth cōtradiction. In respect of y^e former, he cannot do these things. First, he cannot make another God: secondly, he cannot make [ 1 2] himself corruptible: thirdly, he cannot sin. In respect of the lat∣ter, [ 3] he cānot do these things. First, god cānot make time past, [ 1] not to be past: secōdly, God cannot make a blind mā remaining [ 2] blind, to haue his sight: thirdly, God can not make a dead man [ 3] remaining dead, to haue his life. Neuerthelesse most true it is, that the want of doing these and the like things▪ doth not argue any defect in god who is omnipotent, but imperfection or con∣tradiction in the things that should be done. I say thirdly, that Christs body was not in the same place with the wood;* 1.1158 which [ 3] thing is proued at large in the chaper of Christs resurrection; peruse mine answere there, and all obscuritie will surcease.

I say fourthly, that the stone gaue place to Christs body, and that done returned againe to the former place;* 1.1159 like as Peters [ 4] chaines fel off from his hands, as the red sea gaue place to the Israelites, and as the iron gate opened by it owne accord.

I say fiftly, that touching the passage of the Camel, many things may be said: First,* 1.1160 that by the word (Camel) is vnder∣stoode [ 5] a cable rope, and not a beast; because the Greeke word is indifferent to them both. Secondly, that it is but a prouerbe [ 1] or phrase of speech, signifing how hardly rich men enter into [ 2] heauen. Thirdly, that God can dilate the eie of a needle so, as a [ 3] Camel may passe through the same, and that without preiu∣dice to the naturall quantitie of his body. See the third Para∣graph in the end.

I say sixtly, that Christs body came not out of his mothers [ 6] wombe, the clausure being whole & not stirred. For first,* 1.1161 Christ was presented to the Lorde according to the lawe, as the holy gospel doth record: yet the law required such presentation on∣ly of them, which opened their mothers wombe. Secondly,

Tertull. testifieth this opening of the blessed virgins wombe. These are his wordes:* 1.1162 Haec vulua est, propter quam & de a∣lijs scriptum est: Omne masculinum adaperiens vuluam sanctū vocabitur domino. Quis vere sanctus, quam Dei filius? Quis proprie vuluam adaperuit quam quiclausam patefecit: Caeterū omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. Itaque magis patefacta est quia magis erat clausa. Sequitur: cum apostolus non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium Dei pronuntiauit, agnouit adapertae vuluae nuptialem passionem. Thi•• is the wombe, for which it is written of others: euery manchild that openeth the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord. Who is truely holy, but the Sonne of God? who properly opened the wombe, but he that opened it when it was shut? but marriages open it to all: ther∣fore it was more opened, because it was more shut. When the Apostle saith,* 1.1163 not that Christ was borne of a virgin, but of a woman; he acknowledged the nuptiall passion of an opened wombe.* 1.1164 Thirdly, Saint Hierome hath these words: Solu•• e∣nim Christus clausas portas vuluae virginalis aperuit quae tamen clausae iugiter permanserunt. Haec est porta orientalis clausa, per quam solus pontifex ingreditur & egreditur, & nihilomi∣nus semper clausa est. For Christ only opened the gates of the virgins wombe,* 1.1165 that were shut, which for all that were shutte continually. This is the east gate which is shut vp, through which the Bishoppe goeth in and out, and for al that it is euer shut.* 1.1166 Fourthly, Origen hath these words: Quemcunque enim de vtero effusum marem dixeris, non sic aperit vuluam matris suae, vt Dominus Iesus: quia omnium mulierum non partus in∣fantis, sed v••ri coitus vuluam reserat: matris vero dominico tempore vulua reserata est, quo & partus editus. For what man childe soeuer thou shalt name, that is borne of a wombe; he doeth not so open the matrice of his mother, as doeth our Lorde Iesus. For in all women, not the birth of the child, but the copulation of the man openeth the wombe. Yet the wombe of the mother of our Lord was opened euen then when the childe was borne. Fiftly, S. Ambrose hath these expresse and plaine wordes: Non enim virilis coitus vuluae virginalis secreta reserauit,* 1.1167 sed immaculatum semen inuiolabili vtero spiritus sanctus infudit. Sequitur: Hic ergo solus aperuit

sibi vuluam. Nec mirum; hic enim dixerat ad prophetam: priusquam te formarem in vtero, noui te, & in vulua matris sanctificaui te: qui ergo vuluam sanctificauit alienam, vt nas∣ceretur propheta, hic est qui aperuit matris suae vuluam, vt im∣maculatus exiret. For the copulation of man opened not the se∣crets of the virgins wombe, but the holy ghost poured the im∣maculate seede into the inuiolable wombe. He therfore opened the wombe to himselfe alone. And it is no maruell; for he said to the prophet: before I formed thee in the wombe,* 1.1168 I knew thee, and in thy mothers womb I sanctified thee. He therefore that sanctified the wombe of another for the birth of his pro∣phet, is the very same that opened the wombe of his mother, that he might come forth immaculate.

The second replie.

Holy Writ telleth vs, that Christ was borne of a virgin,* 1.1169 to which all the ••ncient fathers accord: yet should she haue beene corrupted and no virgin, if her wombe had beene opened in the birth of Christ.* 1.1170 For as the learned Phisition Fernelius wri∣teth, the losse of virginall integritie, consisteth in the sole dila∣tation of the coniunct parts.

The answere.

I say first, that not onely the holy scriptures, but the an∣cient [ 1] fathers also, and other learned diuines, are to be heard be∣fore all phisicions, in the mysteries of our faith.

I say secondly, that Fernelius maketh nothing for the papists, [ 2] as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the matrice; and that after the natural and ordinary course.

I say thirdly, that though Christs holy mother were a virgin [ 3] both before his birth, in his birth, and after his birth, as all the ancient fathers with vniforme consent doe witnesse: yet was her wombe opened in his birth, as is alreadie prooued. For as their owne angelicall Doctour Aquinas saith,* 1.1171 whose doctrine sundrie Popes one after another haue confirmed: vir∣ginitie is not lost by fraction of the signacle, but by corruption of the mind and purpose of the will.* 1.1172 Saint Austen hath a lear∣ned and large discourse concerning this only point of doctrine, wherein he sheweth grauely, that the apertion of the matrice may be done sundrie waies: to wit, either by arte in the way

of medicine, or by violence of the corrupter, or by other acciden∣tall meanes: and that virginitie this notwithstanding, may be free from all corruption. Much more might Christs owne mo∣thers wombe, be opened by his diuine power: and neuerthelesse her most holy wombe, still remaine inuiolable.

The fift conclusion.

The popish idololatricall masse, is like vnto a clowted beg∣gers cloake. This conclusion will be manifest, so soone as I shall proue sundrie Popes to haue ioyned piece vnto piece, as if it were clowt vpon clowt.

The first Section. Of consecration with the Lords prayer.

IN the primitiue and apostolicall church, the masse or holy communion, was administred with the Lordes prayer onely, al superstitious ceremonies set apart. This to be so doth wit∣nesse Gregorie surnamed the Great, sometime bishop of Rome himselfe: whose testimonie no papist in the worlde can or will reiect.* 1.1173 These are his words; Orationem autem dominicam id∣circo mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, vt ad ipsam solu••modò orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent. And after other prayers we adde the Lords prayer, for this end and purpose: because the maner of the apostles was this, to consecrate the oblation with that onely prayer.

The second Section. Of the Masse said in the vulgar tongue.

IN the ancient church after the apostles time, the holy cōmu∣niō was celebrated in the vulgar tongue, which was known to all the people.* 1.1174 Iustinus Martyr hath these words: Die solis omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt, in eundem locum conuentus fit, & commentaria apostolorum, aut scripta prophe∣tarum, quoad tempus fert, leguntur. Deinde lectore quiescente, praesidens orationem qua populum instruit, & ad imitationem tam pulchrarum rerum cohortatur, habet. Sub haec consurgi∣mus communiter omnes, & precationes profundimus, & sicuti retulimus, precibus peractis, panis offertur, & vinum & aqua••: & praepositus itidē quantū pro virili sua potest, preces & gr••∣tiarum

actiones fundit & populus fausté acclamat▪ dicens, A∣men. On the Sunday, all that liue either in towne or countrey, meete together in one place, and then the epistles of the Apo∣stles, or writings of the Prophets are read, according as the time requireth. Afterward the reader ceaseth, and the cheefe minister maketh an oration, in which hee instructeth the peo∣ple, and exhorteth them to imitate that which is read vnto them. These things being done, we all arise togither and make our prayers; and after our prayers, the bread is offered, with wine and water, and the pastour as he is able, prayeth and gi∣ueth thanks, and the people with ioyfull acclamation say, A∣men. Lo, in the olde time the priest or minister said the com∣munion together with the people, and consequently they vn∣derstoode one another, as also what was said; whereas this day in the popish church, the people neither answere the minister, nor yet vnderstand what is said.

Saint Ambrose hath these words:* 1.1175 In oratione totius ple∣bis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet, tum responsoriis psalmo∣rum, cantu virorum, mulierum, virginum paruulorum, conso∣nus vndarum fragor resultat. When al the people pray toge∣ther, there is a noyse, as if the waues of the sea should beate one against another: then with the answering of Psalmes, with the s••••ging together of men, women, maids, and little children, the consonant sound reboundeth as it were an eccho with the surges of the sea. By this testimonie we see euident∣ly, that the practise of the anciēt church agreeth with ours, and vtterly confoundeth the antichristian popish mumbling.

Pope Gregorie himselfe confirmeth this doctrine,* 1.1176 in these wordes; Sed & dominica oratio apud Graecos ab omni populo dicitur, apud nos autem à solo sacerdote. Furthermore, among the Greekes all the people say the Lords prayer: but with vs the priest alone saith it. Behold,* 1.1177 this Gregory liued 590. yeres after Christs sacred incarnation, & yet in his daies y^• people of Rome vsed to pray with the minister, euē in time of the masse.

Philo a very ancient and learned writer,* 1.1178 sheweth this olde practise of our christian church in these words; Et vt vnus ex omnibus consurgens in medio psalmum honestis modulis con∣cinat, vt{que} praecinenti ei vnum versiculum, omnis multitudo re∣spondeat.

And that one among all shall rise vp in the middest, and sing a Psalme with tuneable voice, and that so soone as he hath sung one verse, all the people answere him.

* 1.1179Sozomenus sheweth plainely in his historie, that in his time, which was more then 400. yeares after Christ, the people and the ministers did sing psalms in the church together. These are the words, as Cassiodôrus in his Tripartite historie reporteth them: Apud Antiochiam non concordabant in professione sua clerus & populus, sed per choros, vt est consuetudo, ad hymnos dicendos Deo, in fine psalmorum monstrabant propriam volun∣tatem. At Antioch there was variance in a certaine point of re∣ligion, betweene the people & the clergie: but singing spalmes to God in companies, as the maner was, they declared their mindes in the end of the Psalmes.

S. Chrysostome speaketh so plainely of the peoples praying together with the priest, and that euen in the time of masse; as none that heare his words, can stand any longer in doubt ther∣of.* 1.1180 These are his expresse words; In ijsdem iterum horrendis mysterijs bene precatur sacerdos populo, & bene precatur popu∣lus sacerdoti, Nam (cum spiritu tuo,) nihil aliud est quam hoc. Ea quae sunt eucharistiae, id est, gratiarum actionis, cōmunia sunt omnia: neque enim ille solus gratias agit, sed etiam omnis popu∣lus. Prius enim acceptâ illorum voce, deinde congregatis illis vt digne & iuste hoc faciat, incipit Eucharistiam. Et quid mira∣ris si populus cum sacerdote loquitur? Againe, in these reuerend mysteries, the priest wisheth grace to the people, & the people desire grace for the priest. For these words (with thy spirite) haue no other meaning. The things that pertaine to the Eu∣charist, that is, to the giuing of thanks, are common to them all; for he onely giueth not thanks, but all the people also with him. For hee first receiueth their voice; after that, they being gathered together that he may doe this reuerently and well, he beginneth the communion. And what maruell is it to thee, if thou see the people speaking with the priest?

* 1.1181S. Hierome giueth a constant testimony, of the practise of the church of Rome in his time, affirming that the people were heard sounding out (Amen) with an Eccho, as if it had beene with an heauenly thunder.* 1.1182 And Saint Basill saith, that in his

time, all the people sang psalmes together in the church. Yea, hee addeth that it was the custome of all churches so to doe.

Saint Cyprian witnesseth the same thing,* 1.1183 to haue beene the practise of the church in his time, alleaging the very words that the commō people answered to the priest. Thus doth he write; Ideo & sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa, parat fratrum mentes dicendo, sursum corda, vt dum respondet plebs, habemus ad Dom▪ admoneatur nihil aliud se quam dominū cogi∣tare debere.* 1.1184 Therfore the priest after y^e preface before the prai∣er, prepareth the minds of the brethren saying, Lift vppe your hearts, that while the common people answer, we lift them vp vnto the Lord, they may be instructed to thinke vpon no other thing but the Lord.

S. Augustine confirmeth that which the other fathers haue said, in these golden words: Quid hoc sit intelligere debemus,* 1.1185 vt humana ratione, non quasi autum voce cantemus Nam & me∣ruli, & psittaci, & corui, & picae, & huiusmodi volucres, s••pe ab hominibus docentur sonare, quod nesc••unt. Scienter autem cantare non aui sed homini diuina voluntate concessum est. In∣fra: Nos autem qui in ecclesia diuina eloquia cantare didicimus, simul etiam instare debemus esse quod scriptum est: beatus popu∣lus qui intelligit iubilationem. Proinde charissimi, quod con∣sona voce cantauimus, sereno etiam corde nosse ac videre debe∣mus.

Wee must vnderstand what this is, that wee may sing with reason as men, and not chirpe in voice like birds. For Owsels,* 1.1186 and Parrets, and crowes, and Pies, and other birds, are often taught by men, to sounde they knowe not what: but to sing with knowledge God hath granted to man, not to birds. Wee therefore that haue learned to sing in the church gods heauenly words, must also endeuour to be that, that is written: Blessed are the people, that vnderstand what they sing. Therefore my dearest, we ought to know and see with a pure hart, that which we haue sung with tuneable voice.

In fine, S. Paul doth bitterly exclaime against this detesta∣ble practise in celebrating the holy mysteries in a strange and vnknowen tongue. Hee commaundeth straitely, that

euerie thing in the churche be done to edification:* 1.1187 and conse∣quently, that the communion be not ministred in an vnknowne tongue, because no man can be edified thereby. These thinges being so, it may be demaunded, what mooued our disholy fa∣ther the pope, to commaund the church-seruice of late yeares, to be done in the Latine tongue? To which question the aunci∣ent and learned writer Lactantius, seemeth to answere pithily in these wordes:* 1.1188 Hinc fida silentia sacris instituta sunt ab ho∣minibus callidis, vt nesciat populus quid colat. Heereupon trustie silence was appointed to the mysteries, by subtle and crafty men: that the people (stil remaining in ignorance,) should neuer know what they worshipped.

The 3. Section, Of the canon of the Masse.

THe papistes of late daies, ascribe such sanctimonie to the ca∣non of their Masse, as farre surpasseth all sense and reason. So soone as they come to the beginning thereof, they spread a∣broad both the armes, they looke vp to heauen, they ioyne their handes in solemne maner, they kisse the altar, they multiply the signes of the crosse,* 1.1189 they quake, they tremble, as if heauen and hell should go togither, they mumble to themselues, no by stander knoweth what but by coniecture, although (as they prate) euen thē be in hand the chiefest mystery of their redemp∣tion. And yet for all these solemne magicall dispositions, this their canon was inuented by one Scholasticus of latter daies.

Pope Gregorie, a man of sufficient credite, doth witnesse the same, to the confusion of all the Papistes. These are his expresse wordes:* 1.1190 Et valde mihi inconueniens visum est, vt precem quam Scholasticus composuerat, seu per oblatio∣nem diceremus, & ipsam traditionem quam redemptor noster composuit, super eius corpus & sanguinem non diceremus. And it seemed to me verie vnfit, that wee should say that praier ouer the oblation, which Scholasticus composed; and let that tradition passe, which our Lord himselfe deliuered.

To the noueltie may fitly be annexed, the manifold varietie of their mangled irreligious canon. For they haue one of

Basilius, another of Chrysostomus, another of Ambrose,* 1.1191 another of Gelasius, another of Scholasticus, another of Isidorus: and as they beare the world in hand, another of S. Peter, and ano∣ther of S. Iames. To which I adde the late reformation of their Missals, and of their Breuiaries, in which was found so much beggarly stuffe infarsed, as their late councell of Trent could not for shame beare any longer therewith.

The 4. Section, Of other peeces of the popish Masse.

PLatina their owne deere friend and Abbreuiator apostolicus,* 1.1192 hath these expresse wordes: Nuda haec primò erant, & om∣nia simplicer tractabantur. Petrus enim vbi consecrauerat, oratione, Pater noster, vsus est. Auxit haec mysteria Iacobus epis∣copus Hierosolymitanus, auxit & Basilius, auxêre & alij. Nam Caelestinus missae introitum dedit, Gregorius Kyrie eleyson▪ gloria in excelsis deo Telesphorus, collationes Gelasius primus, episto∣lam & euangelium Hieronymus: hallelu-ia vero sumptum est ex ecclesia Hierosolymitanâ, symbolum in concilio Niceno, mor∣tuorum autem commemorationem Pelagius inuenit: Thus Leo tertius, osculum pacis Innocentius primus: vt caneretur agnus Dei, Sergius pontifex instituit. These thinges were bare in the beginning, and were all handled simply. For where Peter did consecrate, he vsed the Lords praier. Iames the bishop of Hie∣rusalem increased these mysteries, Basill augmented them, o∣ther also aded thereunto. For pope Celestine made the introite, pope Gregorie added Kyrie eleyson▪* 1.1193 Telesphorus added gloria in excelsis, pope Gelasius made the collects, Hierome added the Epistle and the Gospel. Hallelu-ia was set from Hierusalem, the Creede was made in the councel of Nice, Pope Pelagius inuented the memorie of the dead, pope Leo incense, and Inno∣centius the pax. But pope Sergius caused agnus Dei to be sung. And as Sigebertus saith, pope Gregorie added these wordes:* 1.1194 Dies{que} nostros in tua pace disponas.

Here onely I will admonish the reader, that among popishe ceremonies which are so mystical, one solemne mysterie is this: to wit, that the pax may not be giuen, in Masses for the dead.

Now if we ask, why they depriue the dead of their peace, more then the liuing: Durandus answereth grauely for them, in these expresse wordes: In missa pro defunctis pax non datur, quia fi∣deles animae iam non sunt,* 1.1195 nec vlterius erunt in turbatione hu∣ius mundi, sed quiescunt iam in domino. Vnde non est eis necessa∣rium pacis osculum, quod est pacis & concordiae signum. In the masse for the dead the pax is not giuen, because the faithful soules are not nowe, nor shalbe any longer in the troubles of this world, but rest henceforth in the Lord. Wherfore the kisse of peace is not needfull for them, which is the signe of peace and concord. Thus gentle Reader, thou beholdest their cere∣monies,* 1.1196 and thus thou hearest their doctrine for the same: marke therwith, this my briefe application: This their ceremonie, of witholding the pax in the masses for dead, doth vtterly con∣found their massing sacrifice for the same. For if the withhol∣ding of the paxe, doth signifie their rest in the Lord: then is the masse it selfe idololatricall, which is offered for their pur∣gation. On the other side, if the soules be in purgatorie, and therefore stand in neede of the masse: then is their ceremonie false and phantasticall,* 1.1197 which signifieth them to be in heauen∣ly rest.

* 1.1198To these I must adde as a merriment, that our popishe monkes doe neuer receiue the paxe, because forsooth they are dead to the world. So saith Durand. Hinc est, quod etiam in∣ter monachos pax non datur, quoniam mundo mortui reputan∣tur. Heereupon it commeth that among the monkes, the paxe is not giuen, because they are thought dead vnto the worlde. How they be dead vnto the world, let the worlde iudge. They haue goodly houses, pleasant gardens, fine celles; they are sea∣ted in the most wholesome aire, planted vpon the most fertile soyle, enuironed with most desired prospects. Their diet is rea∣dily prouided, their table is euer well furnished, they want no daintie fare. This only may be the proofe. S. Thomas Bedle the monke, was imprisoned in Yorke sundry yeares, he is now dead, I will reporte no vntrueth of the man. This onely wil I say, for instruction sake. Hee vsed ordinarily to send euerie day for one quart or one pinte of wine, which was verie char∣geable to him, being but a prisoner. His friendes sometime

wished him to abstaine, adding sundry reasons why it seemed conuenient. But he answered,* 1.1199 that in their abbay he had been so long vsed to drinke wine at his pleasure, that hee could not now liue without it. O mortified monkes? Nay, O hypo∣criticall deceiuers of the worlde? for that more fitly is your name.

The 5. Section, Of the mysticall kissing in the popish masse.

The mysteries in the popishe masse are so fit for edification, (which is the end pretended by the same,) as if one Priest a∣mong tenne hundred can expound them, let me haue the shame. For if you aske this priest or that priest, what is meant by such a ceremonie, hee must either obserue monkish silence, or aun∣swere with the colier. That is, hee that inuented them, can tell what they meane. But because I will deale sincerely, and in suche maner as no papist shalbe able to charge me: I will now as euer, set downe their owne words for their better con∣futation. Thus therefore doth their owne Durandus write:* 1.1200 Sacerdos ter osculatur altare, ad designandum triplicem pacem scilicet temporalum, spiritualem, & aeternam Sequitur: rursum, ad notandam duorum testamentorum concordiam, Episcopus dua∣bus vicibus codicem osculatur. Infra: illud quoque vacare non creditur mysterio, quod summus pontifex septem modis accipit osculum: videlicet ad os, ad pectus, ad humerum, ad manus, ad brachia, ad genu, & ad pedes.* 1.1201 The Priest kisseth the aulter thrise, to signifie (I knowe not to whom) the triple peace; that is to say, peace temporall, peace spirituall, and peace eternall. Againe, the Bishop kisseth the booke twise, to sig∣nifie the concord betweene the old and the new testament. Fur∣thermore, we beleeue this to be a great mysterie, that the popes holinesse receiueth a kisse seuen maner-wise: to wit, to his mouthe, to his brest, to his shoulder, to his hands, to his armes, to his knee, and to his feete. Thus gentle reader, thou maiest beholde their irreligious ceremonies, with their fond interpretation of the same. For they had neede to put ma∣nie of their Priestes to the Schoole all their life, before

they will perfectly vnderstand such obscure and vnsauerie signi∣fications. Yet such is the blindnesse of the seely people, that they were brought into the admiration of the masse, by these and o∣ther like beggarly ceremonies. For the lesse they vnderstood, the more magnificence and maiestie they ascribed to the thing.

* 1.1202I must needes adde hereunto, the kissing of the patine. Ad notandum (inquit Durandus) charitatem, sacerdos osculatur patinam, quae designat cor patens in latitudine charitatis. The priest saith Durandus, kisseth the Patine, to giue a signe of charitie, which signifieth an open heart in the latitude of chari∣tie. I weene this is a sufficient Sermon, for y^e whole auditorie. But alas, coulde the people no way be taught what charitie was, vnlesse the priest kissed the Patine? doubtlesse they were so farre from learning any thing thereby, as neither they nor the priest himselfe commonly, knewe what was meant by the same.

The 6. Section. Of the triple breaking of the Sacrament.

THe papistes breake their supposed Christes body into three partes, thereby to expresse this high mysterie. Christes bo∣die risen again, walking on earth, and lying in the graue. So saith pope Sergius in their own canon-law. These are y^e words: Triforme est corpus Domini.* 1.1203 Pars oblata in calicem missa, cor∣pus Christi quod iam resurrexit, monstrat. Pars comesta, ambu∣lantem adhuc super terram. Pars in altari vs{que} ad missae finem remanens, corpus in sepulchro, quia vs{que} ad finem seculi corpora sanctorum in sepulchris erunt. The bodie of our Lord is three∣fold. The part that is put into the chalice, signifieth Christes body risen againe. The part eaten, signifieth Christ yet wal∣king on earth.* 1.1204 The part remaining to the end of the masse, signifieth Christes body in the graue, because the bodies of Saintes shalbe in the graues till the worldes end. We see here their doctrine, we behold their practise; Let vs now duely exa∣mine their mysteries. First therefore the peece dipped into the [ 1] cup, is Christes body (say they) after his resurrection; but it may more fitly represent Christes body crucified, because

drowning of the body, is most like to y^e crucifying of the same. Secondly, the part that is eaten, may more fitly represent Christs dying, then walking: for as I weene, a deuoured thing [ 2] is past walking▪ Thirdly, Christ doth not now walke on earth; and so it is a false figure or signification. Fourthly, this prac∣tise [ 3] of reseruing some part to the ende of the masse,* 1.1205 is nowe [ 4] changed; for the priest this day eateth vp all, euen in the church of Rome.

Here it shall not bee amisse, to set downe the maner of the Popes receiuing; because although the act bee done verie sel∣dome, yet is it not then without a mysterie: and lest credit bee not giuen to my words, their owne Durand shall tell the storie for them. Thus doth he write: Romanus pontifex ideò non com∣municat vbi frangit, quoniam ad altare frangit,* 1.1206 & ad sedem communicat: quia Christus in Emaus coram duobus discipulis fregit, & in Hierusalem coram discipulis duodecim manduca∣uit. In Emaus enim fregisse legitur, sed non comedisse legitur. Ascendens igitur sedem ibi communicat: siquidem secundum apo∣stolum Christus caput est ecclesiae; caput autem in corpore sublimi∣us & excellentius ob sui perfectionem caeteris membris colloca∣tur.

The Pope doth not receiue the sacrament where hee brea∣keth it, because he breaketh it at the altar, but he receiueth it in his chaire.* 1.1207 For Christ brake it in Emaus before his two Dis∣ciples, and he ate it in Hierusalem before his twelue apostles. For we reade that he brake it in Emaus, but not that he ate it. He therfore ascends vp to his seate & receiueth it there. For as the apostle saith: Christ is the head of the church, and the head must be set in an higher and more excellent place, then the o∣ther members in the body, for the perfection thereof. In these words I note first, the fond resons of popish mysteries. I note [ 1] secondly, that the Pope is nothing inferiour to Lucifer in [ 2] pride. I note thirdly, that the Pope aduanceth himselfe aboue [ 3] Saint Peter, whose successour hee sometime claimeth to bee. For herein hee cannot be content to imitate Peter, who recei∣ued with the other apostles his brethren; but hee must haue a more excellent and higher seat, euen while he eateth the eucha∣rist, that so hee may be as another Christ. What is this my

dearest, if it be not to shew himselfe Antichrist indeede.

The seauenth Section. Of the Popish Miter.

WHen Moses that holy seruant of God, came downe from the mount Synai hauing the 2. tables of the law in his hands,* 1.1208 his face shi••ed bright, & was as if it had had two horns, as their vulgar latine text saieth. For the resemblance wherof si dijs placet, the Pope and his byshops must haue miters on at masse: hearken to their owne glosse, and then giue your cen∣sure for the mystery thereof. Thus writeth Durand. Mitra sci∣entiam vtrius{que} testamenti designat.* 1.1209 Duo nam{que} illius cornua, duo sunt testamenta: anterius, nouum: posterius, vetus: quae duo episcopus memoriter debet scire, & illis tanquam duplici cornu fidei inimicosferire. Videri debet quidē subaitis episcop cornu∣tus, sicut & Moses de monte Synai descendens. The myter sig∣nifieth the knowledge of both testaments; for his two hornes are the two testaments: that before, is the new testament; and that behind,* 1.1210 is the olde: which two the bishop must haue by hart and without the booke, and must smite the enemies of the faith with them, as with a double horne. The Byshoppe must be horned to his subiects euen as Moses was, when hee came downe from the mount Synai. By this euerie child may see, how fond the popish mysteries and ceremonies be. This one thing I wil adde, that if the Romish bishops shall neuer weare myters, vntill they can the olde and new testament, as is here mentioned; the most of them doubtles, if not al, shalbe without miters all the dayes of their life. In these and like false signes and sottish ceremonies, with which they haue a long time be∣witched Gods people, doth wholy consist their antichristian re∣ligion.

CHAP. XI. Of the original of certaine odde Popish superstitions.

The first diuision. Of changing the Popes name.

POpe Sergius the second being somewhat ashamed of his ancient name, because it sounded not pleasantly in mens

eares (for he was called Os Porci Swine-mouth) changed his old name and tearmed himselfe Sergius. This Sergius liued more then 840. yeares after Christ;* 1.1211 from which time the maner of Popes hath beene, to change their names so soone as they aspired to the popedome. So writeth their owne deare friends Platina and Carranza. These are Carranzaes wordes;* 1.1212 Ser∣gius, 2. sub Lothario primo Germano Caesare, 3. primus mu∣tauit suum nomē. Nam antea Os Porci fuit appellatus. Sergius the second in the raigne of Lotharius the first, the third empe∣rour of the Germans, changed his name. For before that time he was called swine-mouth; a name verie vnfit for his holines, and therefore with great reason did he change it: and with the like spirit of pride, (I would say of humilitie) other Popes since do imitate the same maner.

The second diuision. Of kissing the Popes feete.

IVstinianus the Emperour,* 1.1213 after hee had sent for the Pope Constantinus to come to him at Nicomedia, receiued him ve∣ry honourably, and sent him backe againe: but first of a cer∣taine fondly conceiued humilitie, he fell downe and kissed the Popes feete.* 1.1214 This Iustinianus raigned more then 700. yeares after Christ; and heere began the kissing of the Popes feete, which as it was done then by the emperour vpon a fond zeale,* 1.1215 so is it this day continued with intollerable superstition.

The third diuision. Of praying vpon Beades.

AFter that the people of God had liued aboue a thousand yeares, vsing altogether godly bookes of prayer, one Peter an eremite a French-man borne,* 1.1216 perceiuing the nature of men to bee desirous of nouelties, was the first that inuen∣ted praying vppon beades. Thus writeth Polydorus Ʋirgi∣lius, a Papist by profession. From hence sprang Rosaries,* 1.1217 Corones, Lady psalters; and a thousand superstitious kinds of

prayers. Whereof to rehearse the originall, is a sufficient con∣futation.

The 4. diuision. Of wearing a Cardinals hat.

* 1.1218INnocentius the fourth of that name, who liued more then one thousand, two hundred and fortie yeares after Christ, first or∣dained that Cardinals should ride on horses in the streetes, and haue a red hat carried before them: by which hat they ought to remember that they should bee readie to sheade their blood for the gospell sake;* 1.1219 so saith their owne Platina.

The 5. diuision. Of the paschall Torch.

* 1.1220THe papists vse vpon Easter eeue (which they terme sabba∣thum sanctum,) to hallow a torch or taper of waxe, which they call caerea paschalis, in which they instill crossewise fiue hallowed greines. To this taper they ascribe great holynesse, and reserue it till the ascension, or Pentecost. Neuerthelesse it was first inuented by Pope Sozimus,* 1.1221 foure hundred yeares af∣ter Christ. This Sozimus falsified the decrees of the Nicene councell, as I haue proued afore, so to maintaine the vsurped primacie of the church of Rome.

The 6. diuision. Of the number of Popish prayers at their masse.

* 1.1222The superstition vsed in poperie, is to too grosse and ridi∣culous. For either they must haue but one prayer, one secret, and one post-communion, (which three are alway in number equall;) or else the same must be, three, fiue, or seuen; but in no case two. And why I pray you? Because forsooth God is not pleased with an euen number. So writeth their great Mai∣ster of ceremonies in these expresse wordes:* 1.1223 Quia vero numero Deus gaudet impari, quidam obseruant vt impares dicant in missa orationes, videlicet, vel vnamitantum, vel tres, vel quinque, vel septem▪ Ʋnam ad designandum fidei vnitatem. Tres, ad significandum mysterium trinitatis, & quia Christus ter in passione orauit dicens: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat à me calix iste. Quinque, ad designandum quinque plagas Christi:

septem, ad designandum spiritum gratiae septi formis, seu septem dona spiritus sancti. Deus enim diuisionem & discordiam dete∣statur. Vnde cùm caeterorum dierum operibus benediceret▪ operi∣bus tamen secundae diei benedixisse non legitur: Eo quod binari∣us numerus primò ab vnitate reeedebat, & ab eo caeteri diuisi∣biles numeri originem sortiuntur, & impar numerus est mundus Because god taketh pleasure in an odde number, some obserue alway to say od praiers at masse: to wit, either one only, or else three, or else fiue, or seuen. One, to signifie the vnitie of faith: three, to signifie y^e mysterie of the Trinitie, & that Christ praied thrise in his passion, saying: Father, if it be possible,* 1.1224 let this cup passe from me. Fiue, to signifie the fiue wounds of Christ. Seuen, to signify y^e spirit of seuenfold grace, or the seuen gifts of the holy ghost; for God detesteth diuision & discord. Where∣fore when he blessed the works of the other dayes, we doe not reade that hee blessed the workes of the second day: and that because the number of two departeth first from vnitie; and the other diuisible numbers take their originall of it; and the odde number is pure and cleane.

Out of these words I note first, that where our master Du∣rand [ 1] saith, that some obserue to say odde praiers,* 1.1225 wee must not thinke that he would except any: for their Tridentine rubricke appointeth all in generall to obserue that order.

I note secondly, that as their Pighius affirmed the scripture to be like a nose of waxe; so do they all at their pleasures appite [ 2] it to euerie trifle, as if it were a nose of waxe indeede. For I pray thee (gentle Reader) what sottish applications are these here mentioned? nay, how bolde are our papists, to wrest the scriptures as they list? and yet do they neuer cease to impute that to others, which is their owne peculiar fault.

I note thirdly, that God is delighted with od numbers, but not with euen; for so saith master Durand,* 1.1226 and he proueth it out [ 3] of their canon law. Whereupon I inferre first, that God is not [ 1] pleased with the ten commandements, which he gaue himself. Secondly, that hee is not pleased with the 12. articles of our [ 2] faith, which the apostles left by tradition as they say. Thirdly, that he was not pleased with the number of the 12. apostles, & perhaps therefore Iudas betrayed him to make the number

odde. Yet, to say so cannot serue the turne because the apostles [ 4] shortly after elected Mathias in his roome.* 1.1227 Fourthly, that the words omitted in the works of the second day, do not argue ei∣ther liking in the odde number, or disliking in the euen. For the same words are added, both in the fourth and in the sixt day; & in the end of al, the works of euerie day are ioyntly commended for very good.

The seauenth diuision. Of mysticall whispering in the Masse.

THe Papistes thinke the cannon of their masse as it were prophaned, if the lay people shoulde but heare one worde thereof: for which respect and other mysticall consideration, the priest is commanded to whisper al to himself. Of this secrecie, thus writeth their Durandus:* 1.1228 Instante memoria dominicae passi∣onis silentium obseruat, vsquedum alta voce dicit, per omnia secula seculorum: illud insinuans, quod Iesus post suscitationem Lazari non palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos. When the memo∣rie of the passion draweth neere, he keepeth silence, vntill hee speake a loud, per omnia secula seculorum, giuing vs to vnder∣stand thereby, that Iesus after he had raised vp Lazarus, wal∣ked not openly among the Iewes. Behold this lerned sermon, consider the edification.* 1.1229

The eight diuision. Of the colours of the habits vsed in the Masse.

THe papists vse foure speciall colours in their masse, and this they doe to signifie to the people foure speciall myste∣ries, as if it were by the way of Sermons. For their chiefest preaching consisteth in odde mysticall dreaming. The first color is white: the second, red: the third, blacke: the fourth, greene. They vse white colours,* 1.1230 to signifie innocencie: red colours, to signifie martyrdome: blacke colours, to signifie sorrow and mourning: greene, to signifie whatsoeuer els. The red they vse in the festiuities of the apostles,* 1.1231 euangelists, and martyrs; so to declare to y^e world, that they shed their bloud for Christs sake; also in the feast of the crosse, and of the innocents staine by K. Herod.* 1.1232 The black they vse vpon good Friday, in y^e Rogations and vpon al fasting daies: at which time their bellies mourne

for lacke of meate, at the least among the simple sort. The greene they vse vpon workie daies,* 1.1233 and at other times not pro∣per to the rest. The white they vse in the feasts of al cōfessors,* 1.1234 and virgins which were not martyrs, in all the feasts of the blessed virgin, in the feast of al saints, in the chaire of S. Pe∣ter, in the conuersion of Saint Paul, in the feasts of our Lord throughout the Octaues, and in the natiuitie of saint Iohn the baptist. And why? forsooth to signifie,* 1.1235 that the persons in whose memories such feasts are celebrated, were free from al, actuall and originall sinne. This is the point of importance, marke it wel. That this is their doctrine, Durand affirmeth it for them. These are his words: In natiuitate Saluatoris & etiam Prae∣cursoris, quoniam vterque natus est mundus, id est,* 1.1236 carens ori∣ginali peccato. In the natiuitie of our sauiour and also of his precursor, because either of them was borne pure, that is, free from originall sinne. This is the mysterie of Popish colours; in which they are not content vainely to flourish like Robin¦hood in greene, but they must also blaspheme god, making the creature equall with the creator. For onely the sonne of God was free from sin, as is proued in the chapter of mans iustifica∣tion.

The 9. diuision. Of Candelmas-day.

THe old Pagan-Romanes, in the Calends of Februarie honoured Februa the mother of Mars, whom they suppo∣sed to be the God of battaile. The honour that they did exhibit was this: they went vp and downe the streetes, with candels and torches burning in their hands. In regard hereof,* 1.1237 Pope Sergius inuented another like ethnicall superstition: to wit, that the christian Romaines should go in procession with bur∣ning candels in their hands, and that in the day of the purifica∣tion of the blessed virgin, the second of Februarie. By which feast and burning candels, the Pope giueth vs to vnderstand, that the virgin Mary was pure from sinne, and stood no need of purgation. Of which point I haue spoken sufficiently, in the chapter of mans iustification.

The 10. diuision. Of the Popish Agnus Dei.

THe Popes of late time haue vsed euerie seauenth yeare, and the first yeare that euerie one is made Pope, to conse∣crate solemnely with prayers, chrisme, and manifold ceremoni∣monies,* 1.1238 certaine round peeces of waxe hauing the print of a Lambe, and for that cause so tearmed. With this kind of pal∣tery stuffe this world is so bewitched, that infinite numbers do ascribe a great part of their saluation thereunto. He that hath an Agnus Dei about him, beleeueth that he shalbe deliuered by sea and lande, from all tempests, thunder, earthquakes, fire, haile, thunderbolts, sodaine death, and from all euill. If any man will not beleeue me, let him reade a little booke printed at Colonia, containing the order sodalitatis B. Mariae virginis; which is euerie where to be sold; in which booke he shall find, much more then I haue said.

The 11. diuision. Of the Popes Bulles.

POpe Adrian the first of that name, caused his pardons, pri∣uiledges, and grants to be sealed with lead, which they cal∣led the popes bulles. These bulles were vnknowen to Christs church,* 1.1239 for the space of 772. yeares after Christ: and if it had beene still so till these our dayes, no detriment should we haue sustained thereby. Polydore will haue them to bee called bulles of the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by corruption of speech.

The 12. diuision. Of the Popish carni-uale, or Shrouetide.

THe deuout Romaines, who whip themselues in Lent for their sinnes, till they seeme as pure as Christ all, vse a long time before Lent, to gadde vp and downe in the streetes and from house to house in visards; neither can men be discerned from women, nor women from men, they are al so disguised: by meanes whereof all iniquitie is committed, as their owne deare friend Polydore hath witnessed.* 1.1240 But what skilleth it? a little whipping in Lent, will make condigne satisfaction for the

fault. Yea, if the rich do hire the poore to be scourged for them, the satisfaction is deemed sufficient. Polydore saith, that in his time they vsed this irreligious madding, for the space of two moneths; but of late yeares the Pope hath abbridged the time. Neuerthelesse the practise is euen this day, most execrable, heathenish, and intollerable.

CHAP. 12. Of Popish auricular confession.

COncerning auricular confession, I haue spoken sufficiētly in my booke of Motiues. It shal now be inough to answer to such obiections, as the papists do or may frame against the same.

The first obiection.

Christ commanded to confesse our sinnes,* 1.1241 when he gaue his priests authoritie to loose them: for they cannot loose any man, vnlesse they first know him to be bound.

The answere.

I say first, that Christ speaketh in that place, not of confessi∣on, [ 1] but of excommunication and discipline of the church; which Christ promiseth to ratifie and approue in heauen, so often as his ministers shall execute the same vppon earth, according to his word.* 1.1242 Which sense may be gathered out of Saint Paules discourse, as well to the Corinthians, as to the Thessalonians.

I say secondly, that Gods ministers bind and loose sins, by preaching his sacred word; of which kind of binding and loo∣sing, Christ speaketh in Saint Matthew and in Saint Iohn.* 1.1243 [ 2] For when the people of God beleeue in their hearts his word sincerely preached, and in their conuersation shew the liuely fruits thereof: then doubtlesse are their sinnes loosed on earth. and then is that loosing also ratified in heauen: then are the wordes of the Apostle verified,* 1.1244 who saith that the gospel of Christ is the power of God vnto saluation, to euery one that beleeueth it: then are Christs ministers (as the Apostle saith,* 1.1245) become in them, the sauour of life vnto life. On the contrarie

side, when the people will not heare and beleeue Gods worde sincerely preached, but contemne it, and the ministers thereof: then doubtlesse are their sinnes bound on earth, and then is that binding also approued in heauen. Then are the apostles words verified, who saith that vengeance is readie against all disobe∣dience. Then are Christes ministers (as y^e apostle saith,) made vnto them,* 1.1246 the sauour of death vnto death. What can be a more ioyfull loosing? what can be a more terrible binding? See the aunswere to the third obiection following,* 1.1247 and there marke S. Hieromes words.

I say thirdly, that our people cōfesse their sins generally be∣fore [ 3] the minister, & in the face of the whole congregation, accor∣ding to the holy scriptures.* 1.1248 Yea, in the reformed churches a∣broad, the people vse to confesse to the ministers, such speciall sins as most greeue & clog their consciences, and for which they need graue aduise and godly councell. Which christian libertie is graunted also, in our churches of England. For such as list may confesse their sinnes to the minister priuately, and haue both his godly aduise and absolution, if he deeme them penitent for their sinnes.

The replie.

Your confessions are nothing els, but a meere mockery: for ye confesse your selues generally to be sinners, but ye name no sins at all. Againe, as in Germany they confesse some sinnes, so do they leaue vnconfessed what pleaseth them. And this is the scornful libertie, which ye grant to your churches of England.

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that we confesse our sinnes this day, as the Is∣raelites of olde confessed their sinnes,* 1.1249 before Ezra and the Le∣uites. As the humble publican confessed his sins, when he said: O God, be mercifull to me a sinner. As the prophet Dauid confessed his sins, when he said: I know mine iniquities, and my sin is euer before me. Against thee, against thee only haue I sinned, and done euill in thy sight: that thou maist be iust when thou speakest,* 1.1250 and pure when thou iudgest. As the prodigal son confessed his sins,* 1.1251 when he said: Father, I haue sinned against heauen & before thee, & am no more worthy to be called thy son. And as your selues confesse your sins, in the beginning of euery

masse. I say secondly, that your selues graunt, that Venials [ 2] need no confession at al. And yet as I haue already proued,* 1.1252 the least sin of al deserueth eternall death. For thus doth your own famous Canonist write: Quibus consequens est, posse quem, si ve∣lit, confesso vno peccato veniali alterum tacere. Vpon which it followeth, that one may if he list, confesse one veniall sinne and conceale another. Maior and other Schoole-doctors, are of the same opinion.

I say thirdly, that by the scriptures vpon which ye woulde gladly ground your confession, we are no lesse bound to confesse [ 3] one sin then another.* 1.1253 For your triuolous distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes, can be found in no text of holy scripture. And consequently, since the scripture it selfe by your graunt, freeth vs from confessing Venials: it followeth directly, that wee are bound to confesse none at all.

I say fourthly, that your confession is ridiculous indeede, as [ 4] which vrgeth the penitent to confesse those sinnes to sinful men, which God of his mercy hath forgiuen already. I prooue it, be∣cause your best approoued writers hold, that contrition onely reconcileth sinners to God, and taketh away both the fault and the paine. But after that we are reconciled to God by only cō∣trition, and haue both our sinnes and the satisfaction remitted: I weene it is a vain and a ridiculous thing,* 1.1254 to afflict our selues for popish absolution. This that I say, is witnessed by Marti∣nus Nauarrus, by your learned frier Ioan. Lud. Viualdus, and di∣uers others. I say fiftly, that your confessions are neuer able to bring peace to any troubled conscience, but to driue them head∣long [ 5] into desperation. For first, none liuing is able to make a true confession of all his sinnes:* 1.1255 which thing is so cleere by the Scriptures, that your Cardinall Caietane cannot denie it. Secondly, thousandes are so turmoiled therewith, that dayly they come to confesse the sinnes which they had forgotten, con∣demning [ 2] themselues of their former negligence. Thirdly, [ 3] none of you all can prescribe howe much time, or what dili∣gence is inough, y^t ones confession may be perfit. The conside∣ratiō wherof, bringeth many thousand souls to perplexitie. For you beare thē in hand, y^t they must confesse all mortal sins, and all specificall differences of the same. And yet will I gage

my life, that ye haue ten thousand priestes in Europe, yea per∣haps in Italie, that cannot perceiue the aforesaid differēce; and much lesse can the lay people performe it. See more hereof, in my booke of Motiues.

The 2. obiection.

* 1.1256S. Iohn the baptist induced the people to the confession of their sinnes: which doubtlesse was not to confesse themselues in generall to be sinners, but to vtter euery man his sinnes. So is it said in the actes of the apostles, that many of them which beleeued,* 1.1257 came confessing and declaring their deeds. And ther∣fore saith S. Hierome, that priestes binde and loose, Auditâ peccatorum varietate,* 1.1258 hauing heard the varietie of sinnes.

The answere.

I say first, that S. Iohn the baptist cannot meane of your [ 1] sacramentall confession, because it was not instituted before his decollatiō.* 1.1259 But you make smal accompt to wrest the holy scrip∣ture, if by any meanes it could so serue your turne. For as your graund doctor Pighius resembled it to a nose of waxe, euen so in good sooth ye seeme to vse it. The trueth is this: S. Iohn exhorting the people to repentance, and to amendment of their former liues euil spent, found so good successe in his preaching, that Hierusalem,* 1.1260 and all Iurie, and all the countrey about Iordan, were desirous to be baptized; and in signe of their true repentance, they publickly acknowledged their sinnes. But that they this did in generall termes, and not in popish maner, [ 1] I prooue it by two reasons. First, because popish auricular con∣fession was not yet inuented, but after Christes resurrection, [ 2] as all papistes graunt. Againe, because one man could not pos∣sibly heare seuerally,* 1.1261 the generall confessions of so manie mul∣titudes▪ speciallie, in so short a time.

[ 2] I say secondly, that with you papistes, auricular confess••on is an holy sacrament, and to be made of such sinnes only, as are committed after baptisme.* 1.1262 And yet doth S. Iohn speake, as is euident by the text, only of those sins that were done before bap∣tisme. This is your Hysteron proteron, to whom an horse-mil and a mil-horse, is all one.

I say thirdly,* 1.1263 that the confession which these Ephesians made, whereof S. Luke speaketh; is an euident external signe of true inward remorse, and of sincere faith in Christ Iesus: but doubtlesse it doth nothing at all resemble, the blasphemous po∣pish auricular confession. For first, they confessed their sinnes [ 1] verbally, as they burnt their bookes really; but of absolution S. Luke speaketh not one word, which for all that in poperie is es∣sentiall. Secondly, this confession was voluntarie, but popish [ 2] confession is by compulsion. Thirdly,* 1.1264 this confession was done in the face of the congregation, but popish confession is made in [ 3] the priests eare. Fourthly, as some of the faithfull made this [ 4] confession, so other some did not: but amongst the papistes it must be made of all, vnder paine of damnation. Fiftly, as Ma∣thew [ 5] confessed himselfe to haue been a publican, and as Paule confessed that he had persecuted Christes Church;* 1.1265 but neither of them confessed any other sinne. So the faithfull at Ephe∣sus of zeale confessed their notorious deedes, but not all their particular sinnes, Nay, they only confessed how Satan had se∣duced them, and for that end they burnt their bookes. Which publick attestation done to the glory of God, can neuer establish secret popish whispering in the priestes eare.

I say fourthly,* 1.1266 that S. Hierome maketh altogither against popish confession; as who affirmeth the priest or bishop to haue [ 4] no other power in binding and loosing,* 1.1267 then the priest of the old testament had in making cleane or vncleane: That is to say, as the priestes of the old testament, did declare who were cleane, or vncleane: so the ministers of the Church knowing some sin∣ners to be penitent, and other some to be vnpenitent, pronounce according to Gods worde, that the sinnes of the one sorte are bound, and of the other sort loosed. And heere note by the way, that the word (peccatorum) in S. Hierome, doth as aptly signi∣fie sinners as sinnes: and therefore these wordes (Auditâ pec∣catorum varietate,) I thus translate: hauing heard the varie∣tie of the sinners. This I say, because the papistes seeke to make aduantage of the indifferencie of the word. And yet how∣soeuer they take it, it cannot serue their turne.

The 2. obiection.

Christ commanded him that was clensed from his leprosie,* 1.1268

to go vnto the priest. And he likewise commanded his apostles to loose Lazarus that was bound, thereby signifying that they should loose our sinnes.* 1.1269

The answere.

[ 1] I say first, that this text of Scripture prooueth plainly, that the priest cannot forgiue sinne,* 1.1270 or make the sinner cleane; but only pronounce and declare him to be cleane, whom God hath alreadie clensed. For otherwise, God would haue sent him to the priest that had the leprie, before hee was clensed from the same; that so hee might haue found remedie, at the Priestes handes.

[ 2] I say secondly, that as yet the ceremonies of the lawe were not abrogate,* 1.1271 and therefore Christ woulde not haue them con∣temned or omitted. Now the law was as we reade in Leuiti∣cus, that whosoeuer was clensed from the leprosie, should pre∣sent himself before the priest, and offer vp the sacrifice of thanks∣giuing. This is the mysterie, wherein the papistes would sta∣blish their popishe absolution. The end of the lawe was, that Gods goodnesse shoulde be publickly approoued, and that the party clensed should giue a signe of gratitude. Therfore doth it follow in the text: Goe and shewe thy selfe to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commaunded for a witnesse to them.* 1.1272 For he could not be receiued into the congregation, but by the iudgement of the priest.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that Christ commanded not only his disciples to loose Lazarus,* 1.1273 but all the Iewes also, and the very women that were present. And consequently, not priests only but euen lay men, and women also may giue absolution. Which thing I weene, the wiser sort of papists will neuer graunt. Yet the end of this loosing was not to establishe popishe absolution, but to make the miracle manifest to the incredulous Iewes. I prooue it by these wordes next afore going: I knowe that thou hearest me alwaies, but because of the people that stand by, I said it; that they may beleeue, that thou hast sent me. Yea, it cannot be prooued by the text, that the disciples were appointed to loose Lazarus, saue only in generall termes, as also were the

women that stood by. And indeed Christ seemeth to haue com∣mitted that office principally to the Iewes, that so all occasion of incredulitie might be taken from them.

The 3. obiection.

S. Iames saith: confesse your sinnes one to another,* 1.1274 and pray one for another, that he may be healed. And Christ himself saith: receiue ye the holy Ghost. Whose sinnes so euer yee re∣mit, they are remitted to them: and whose sinnes so euer ye reteine, they are retained. And a little before he saith thus: As my father sent me, so doe I send you. Now it is certaine that Christ was sent with all power, euen to binde and loose mens sinnes: and therefore his apostles being sent in the same ma∣ner, must needes haue power to forgiue sinnes as he had. Yea, the church hath euer thus vnderstood these Scriptures.

The answere.

I say first, that in these wordes Christ gaue authoritie to preach the gospel; which whosoeuer beleeue, haue their sinnes [ 1] remitted, and whosoeuer beleeue it not,* 1.1275 are subiect to damnati∣on. Other binding and loosing we finde none in the scriptures; neither yet that Christ heard any confessions. This sense of binding and loosing by preaching the word of God, S. Hierom, whom the papistes boast to be their patrone heerein, maketh so euident, as more to a reasonable man cannot be wished.* 1.1276 These are his words: Funibus peccatorum suorum vnusquis{que} constrin∣gitur: quos funes at{que} vincula soluere possūt & apostoli, imitan∣tes magistrum suū qui eis dixerat: quaecun{que} solueritis super ter∣rā, erunt soluta & in coelo.* 1.1277 Soluunt autem eos apostoli sermone Dei, & testimonijs scripturarum, & exhortatione virtutum. Euery one is bound with the cordes of his sinnes: which cordes and bandes the Apostles can loose, while they imitate their maister, that said (these words) vnto them:* 1.1278 what things soeuer ye shall loose on earth, shalbe loosed also in heauen. And the apostles loose them by y^e word of God, & by the testimonies of the scriptures, & by the exhortation of vertues. Behold here these golden words. The papists bitterly exclaime against vs, when we teach that Gods ministers do bind & loose mens sins,

by the true preaching of his sacred worde: and yet the holy and most learned father S. Hierome,* 1.1279 whom the papistes in their church-seruice, terme (doctorem maximum) the greatest doctor of all the rest; teacheth the selfe same doctrine, in most plaine, flat, and expresse termes. To which exposition of S. Hierome, when any papist shal answere sufficiently, I promise to become his bondman. For S. Hierome alledgeth the verie same scrip∣ture, vpon which the papistes would ground their new no ab∣solution, and affirmeth that the apostles imitate and fulfill Christes commandement, when they preach his word, declare the scriptures, and exhort to godly life. Oh sweete Iesus, who but papistes can denie such plaine testimonies? Nay, nay, who but senselesse men, who but arrogant men, who but impudent men, who but men carelesse of their saluation; will desperately impugne so manifest and comfortable doctrin, so exactly and so sweetly agreeing with the holy scriptures? God graunt that they may once espie their grosse errors, and with humilitie ac∣knowledge the same.

[ 2] I say secondly, that the practise of the auncient church, and al approoued antiquitie is against you. Heereof none can stand in doubt that seriously peruseth my booke of Motiues.

[ 3] I say thirdly, that to be sent as Christ was sent, doth argue a similitude, but not an identitie or equalitie: as when Christ commandeth vs to loue our neighbour as our selfe; hee char∣geth vs not,* 1.1280 to loue him in the same degree. For we may law∣fully haue more care of our owne soule, then of our neigh∣bours: and also preferre our owne necessitie before our neigh∣bours.

[ 4] I say fourthly, that the giuing of the holy ghost to the Apo∣stles was very necessary;* 1.1281 yet not to forgiue sinnes in popishe sense, but for the effectuall preaching of Gods worde. For o∣therwise, they being of themselues poore and simple men, and sent to all nations as lambes among wolues, could neuer haue accomplished their commission, with authoritie, fruite and ef∣fect.

[ 5] I say fiftly, that S. Iames speaketh of mutual reconciliati∣on, which ought to be between neighbour and neighbour: and therefore doth he commaund mutuall praier, aswell as hee doth

mutuall confession. Neither are his words restrained either to priests or to lay men, but vttered indifferently to all: yea,* 1.1282 if the apostle should mean as the Papists would haue him, it would folow of necessitie that the priests should aswell confesse in the eares of the lay men, as the lay men in the eares of the priest. I prooue it, because the apostle saith indifferently (confesse your faults one to another, and pray one for another.) And if any wil be so absurde, as to interpret praying, for absolution; then doe I answer that the lay man must as wel absolue the priest, as be absolued of him. This case is so plaine, that their owne Scotus (whome for his sharp wit & subtile distinctions, they surnamed Doctor Subtilis) freely granteth that their au∣ricular confession is neither grounded in this place, nor in any other text of holy scripture: these are his owne words:* 1.1283 Sed nec per hoc videtur mihi quod Iacob, praeceptum hoc dedit, nec prae∣ceptum à Christo promulgauit. Primum non: vnde enim fuit si∣bi authoritas obligandi totam ecclesiā cum esset tantū episcopus ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae? nisi dicas illam ecclesiam in principio fuisse principalem & per consequēs eius episcopum principalē fuisse Patriarcham, quod non concedent Romani; nec quod illa authoritas proprie pro tempore illo erat sibi subtracta. N••c se∣cundum videtur; quia apostoli publicantes praceptum Domi∣ni in scripturis suis, vtebantur modo loquendi per quem potuit innotescere quod erant praecones Christi Sequitur dicendo enim confitemini alterutrum, non magis dicit confessionem faciendā esse sacerdoti quam alij. Subdit enim statim: & orate pro inul∣cem vt saluemint: vbi nullus diceret ipsum instituisse, nec pro∣mulgasse praeceptum diuinum, sed intellectus eius est sicut in illo verbo: confitemin•• alterutrum persuasio ad humilitatē; vt sci∣licet generaliter nos cōfiteamur apud proximos peccatores iux∣ta illud: si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus & vertias in nobis non est. Ita per secundum persua∣det ad charitatem fraternam vt scilicet per charitatem frater∣nam subueniamus nobis inuicem. Neither doth this perswade me, that Iames gaue this commaundement; neither that hee published it as commaunded by Christ: the first seemeth not: for from whence could hee haue authoritie to binde the whole church, being but only the B. of Ierusalem? vnlesse thou wilt

say, that that church in the beginning was the principall, and consequently, that the B. therof was the principall patriarke, which the Romanes wil not grant: neither, that that authority was properly for that time taken from them. Neither is the second probable, because the apostles, when they published the Lords commandement in their writings, vsed that manner of phrase. By which it may appeare, that they were the publish∣ers of Christs institution. For in saying (these words) confes one to another, he commaundeth no more to make confession to a priest, then to a lay man: for he addeth forthwith; and pray one for an other, that ye may be saued. Where none wil say that he ordained, neither that he published gods cōmandemēt, but the vnderstanding is as in the other place, a perswasion to humility, to wit, that we generally confesse our selues sinners to our neighbors. Euen so doeth he by the second perswade to brotherly loue: to wit, that of charity we wil help one another.

Thus writeth their subtile schoole-doctour Scotus, who not able to stablish auricular confession in the scriptures, fleeth to their last refuge, to wit, to vnwritten traditions: for in the end of al he addeth these words:* 1.1284 Apparet ergo istud non esse de iure diuino promulgato per scripturam apostolicam Vel er∣go tenendum est primum membrum, scilicet quod sit de iure di∣uino promulgato per euangelium: vel si illud non sufficiat, di∣cendum est tertium; scilicet quod est de iure diuino positiuo pro∣mulgato à Christi apostolis sed ecclesiae promulgato per apostolos absque omni scriptura.

* 1.1285Of this opinion is Beatus Rhenanus, Richardus, Durandus, Bonauentura Hugo, Panormitanus, and the popish Canonists generally. Of Beatus Rhenanus his opinion more shall be saide shortly: of Richardus, Durandus, Bonauentura, and Hugo, Iose∣phus Angles may satisfie the Reader: and what popish cano∣nists hold,* 1.1286 Nauarre and Couarruuias do not conceale: of whom with others reade in my booke of Motiues.

[ 6] I say sixtly, that by the opinion of their famous cardinall Caietane,* 1.1287 secret confession is against Christs institution, as also the precept that vrgeth vs to the same.

[ 7] I say seuenthly, that auricular confessiō was not an article of faith in the church of Rome vntill the councell of Lateran,* 1.1288

which councell was celebrated vnder pope Innocentius the third of that name, more then 1200. yeeres after Christ. So saith frier Ioseph in his narration to the pope: yea,* 1.1289 which is more to be admired, the necessity of auricular confession was not established by popish decree, before the said Innocent▪ was pope of Rome: so writes their own historiographer Platina.* 1.1290

The fourth obiection.

Tertullian and Cyprian who liued aboue 1300. yeres ago, do both make mention of secret confession made closely to the priests: yea, of such sins as the people neuer did,* 1.1291 saue only that they thoght of thē in their harts. Which words can neuer be rackt to publike confession,* 1.1292 but must perforce be vnderstood of that auricular cōfession, which is this day vsed in the church of Rome.

The answere.

I say first, that Cyprian and Tertullian speake of publike [ 1] confession, which the fathers of the ancient church appointed to be done for publike crimes: which practise in some measure is this day obserued in our church of England. I say second∣ly, [ 2] that albeit in the ancient church, some deuout people of great zeale confessed to the priests their secret faults, desiring their counsel, prayers, and instruction in that behalfe: yet were such confessions voluntary vntill Innocentius, neither were they made by all the people,* 1.1293 neither did they recite all their sinnes, but such onely as seemed good vnto them. This an∣swer is sufficiently prooued already; yet for better satisfaction of the Reader, I will confute papists by papists in expresse termes. Beatus Rhenanus a popish diuine,* 1.1294 and a man of great learning, though carried away with the errours of his time, hath testified this veritie so sincerely and so copiously, as more neede not be said herein. First therefore he hath these words: De publica confessione siue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 facit mentionē,* 1.1295 (cuius eti∣am Leo papa meminit de poenitentia, dist. 1.) qua maiores no∣stros apparet aliquandiu vsos fuisse priusquā ista secreta nas∣ceretur, qua hodie cōscientiā nostram sacerdoti detegimus, vs{que} ad circumstantiarū omnium minutias; quā tamen saluberrimam esse nemo potest inficiari. Sane sunt etiam inter iuris pontificij interpretes, qui institutam ab ecclesia tradant confessionē: igi∣tur quantum conijcere datur, illa sumpsit originem ex veteri

instrumento: haec autē hinc nata videtur, quod constitutis quibus∣dam poenitentiae legibus, quib & tempus & modus singulis pec∣catis expiandis praestituebatur, (Canones poenitentiales vocant▪) opus▪ fuit sacerdotem in consilium adhiberi, praesertim à laicis.

He maketh mention (he speaketh of Tertullian,) of publike confession, whereof Leo also maketh mention; which it is cleare that our ancestors vsed som space of time, before this secret cō∣fession was hatched, with which we this day disclose our consci∣ence to the priest, til we haue told the least circumstance of al, which neuertheles no man can denie to be very good. Yea, ther be euen amōg them that interpret the popes law, who acknow∣ledge confession to be ordained by the church. Therefore as I can coniecture,* 1.1296 the publike confession began of the olde Testa∣ment; this auricular came vp thus, because so soone as certain lawes were made, in which the time and the maner were ap∣pointed for the punishment of euery sinne (which they tearme the penitentiall canons;) it was needefull to haue a priest for counsell, especially to the lay people.

[ 1] Out of these words I note first, that Tertullian, Cyprian, Leo, and all the ancient writers, do alway vnderstand publike, when they speake of confession; although some of them, as Leo were bishops of Rome themselues.

[ 2] I note secondly, that the ancient church knewe not this late Popish auricular confession, as which was hatched but of late yeares.

[ 3] I note thirdly, that this Beatus Rhenanus is a great papist, as who acknowledgeth this confession auricular to be good; & consequently, that his answer is most forcible against y^e papists

[ 4] I note fourthly, that this auricular confession was ordained by the law of man, and neither by Christ nor by his apostles.

[ 5] I note fiftly, that the confession wherof the ancient fathers speake, was of some speciall sinnes, but not of all: I proue it, because Rhenanus saith that it began of the old testament;* 1.1297 in which it is cleare, that all sins were not particularly confessed. Let this be wel marked.

[ 6] I note sixtly, that after the constitution of the penitential ca∣nons, priests were ordained purposely to giue counsell and instruction to the simple Lay people, which in processe

of time, is brought to a further matter.

Secondly, Rhenanus hath these expresse words:* 1.1298 Vides igi∣tur necessarium fuisse sacerdotis vti consilio, quatenus institutis poenitentiae legibus fieret satis: quae laicis non perinde cognitae erant. Sequitur: caeterum soli Deo confitendum esse, diuus Chry∣sostomus author est. Thou seest therefore that it was necessa∣ry to vse the counsel of a priest,* 1.1299 that so the penitentiall canons might be obserued, which the lay people vnderstood not. But for al that, that we must confesse our selues only to God, S. Chrysost. is our author. Out of these words I note first, that [ 1] the ancient church appointed priests ouer the penitents, onely for this end and purpose; that they might giue them counsell how to make satisfaction according to the canons, which them selues did not vnderstand. I note secondly, that we are bound [ 2] to confesse all our sinnes, onely to God alone. Which Rhe∣nanus (though a Papist) granteth constantly,* 1.1300 being thereto inforced by the authoritie of the scripture, of S. Chrysostome, S. Cyprian, S. Basil, S. Bede, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, Tertullian, Hesychius, Theodulphus, Theodorus, Bertra∣mus, Rabanus, and Nectarius; all which hee alleadgeth for his opinion. Who can wish further proofe?

Thirdly, Rhenanus writeth thus:* 1.1301 Non aliam ob causam complurium hîc testimonijs vsi sumus, quam ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clancularia illa admissorum confessione nihil locutum, quae quātum conijcimus, penitus id temporis ignoraba∣tur. For no other cause haue I vsed here the testimonies of so many writers, but lest any should maruell,* 1.1302 that Tertullian spake nothing of that secret confession, which (as I thinke) was altogether vnknowen at that time. Lo, Tertullian spake not one word of auricular confession, as which was not heard of in his time. So then, the holy fathers are wholy against the papists, euen by the iudgement of a famous papist. Fourthly, Rhenanus saith thus; Thomas Aquinas & Scotus, homines ni∣mium [ 4] arguti, confessionem hodie talem reddiderunt, vt Ioannes ille Geilerius grauis ac sanctus theologus, qui tot annis argen∣torati concionatus est, apud amicos suos saepe testatus sit, iuxta corū deuteroseis impossibile esse confiteri. But Th. Aquinas & Scotus, men too much delighted with subtilties, haue brought

confession this day to such a passe,* 1.1303 that Ioannes Geilerius a graue and reuerend diuine, and a preacher a long time at Ar∣gentoratum, said many a time vnto his friends, that it was im∣possible for a man to make his confession, according to their tra∣ditions.* 1.1304 Out of these words I note first, that the vaine curious distinctiōs of the schoole doctors, haue brought much mischeif into the church of god: which if a papist had not spoken it, wold [ 2] seeme incredible to the world. I note secondly, that it is impos∣sible for a papist to make his confession according to the popish law; & consequently, that al papists by popish doctrine, must perish euerlastingly.* 1.1305 Marke wel my words, gentle reader. The papists teach vs to hold for an article of our beleef, that we are bound to make our confessions as the popish lawe prescribeth; that is, as Aquinas and Scotus haue set towne the same. And for al that, Ge••lerius a papist himselfe and a great diuine, com∣plained often to his friendes, that no man coulde possiblie performe the same.* 1.1306 Nowe then, since on the one side, the po∣pish confession must bee made vnder paine of damnation, and since on the other side, none possibly can make the same as is required; it followeth of necessitie by popish doctrine, that all papists must be damned eternally. O miserable poperie, con∣founded by thy selfe! Thine owne doctors O popery, (such force hath the truth) haue bewrayed thy trecherie to the world. It is to vs his great mercy, for the merits of Christ Iesus, and to you papists his iust iudgement, for the punishment of your sinnes. If you wil in time repent and embrace his holy gospel, his mercie is open towards you: if you will still continue in your wilful obstinacie, God doubtlesse wil reuenge the bloud of his innocents at your hands. For with your beggerly vn∣written traditions, you deuour the soules of many thousands. [ 3] I note thirdly, that many liuing among the papists, doe ex∣ternally obey the popish law; who in their hearts detest a great part of their late hatched Romish religion.* 1.1307 This is euident by the secret complaint of this learned man Geilerius, who tolde that to his trustie friends, which hee durst not disclose to others.

* 1.1308I say thirdly, that in S Cyprians time, some were so zealous and so esteemed the sacred ministerie, that although they did

not denie the faith publikely in time of persecution: yet bicause they had some doubts therein, & were troubled in their minds, they voluntarily disclosed their secret griefes to Gods mini∣sters humbly desired their godly aduise, and submitted them∣selues to do what they thought expedient: by reason whereof, they sometime had publike penance inioyned them, and confes∣sed that in the face of the congregation, which they before dis∣closed secretly to the ministers: which thing was appointed for edification sake by the ministers, and of deuotion voluntarily performed by the penitents. This my answere is fully con∣tained, as well in the words of Origen, as of Saint Cyprian.

Saint Cyprian hath these words;* 1.1309 Quanto & fide maiores & timore meliores sunt, qui quamuis nullo sacrificij aut libelli fa∣cinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitauerunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes dei dolenter & simpliciter confitentes exomologesin conscientiae faciunt, animi sui pondus expo∣nunt, salutarem medelam paruis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirunt. How much sounder in faith and better in holy feare are they, who neither hauing offended by sacrificing to the I∣dols, nor by exhibiting libels to the magistrates, yet because they sometime thought of these matters, do simply & penitent∣ly confesse the same to Gods ministers, doe lay open their con∣science, and do disclose the griefe of their minds, and seeke for wholesome medicine, though their wounds be small and ea∣sie to be cured. Out of these words I note first, that all ge∣nerally [ 1] made not their confessions of secret faults, but one∣ly certaine zealous & deuout persons. I note secondly, that as [ 2] al people did not confes their secret faults, so neither did these deuout penitents confes al their secret faults; but only their se∣cret cogitations, concerning y^e denial of their faith in persecuti∣on. I note thirdly, that these deuout persōs perceuing thē that did the facts openly, to be inioyned to confesse the same in the [ 3] face of the congregation, & withal doubting what themselues were bound to doe for their secret thoughts of the same mat∣ters; came voluntarily to Gods ministers, confessed the griefe of their mind vnto them, and desired their godly counsell. All which may be gathered out of S. Cyprians words, and more plainely out of Origens words following.

Origen hath these expresse words, Tantumodo circumspice dili∣gentius, cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum. Proba prius medi∣cum▪ cui debeas causam languoris exponere; qui sciat infirmari cum infirmante, flerecum flente▪ qui condolendi & compatiendi nouerit disciplinā, vt ita demum si quid ille dixerit, qui se pri∣us & eruditum medicum ostenderit & misericordem; si quid con∣silii dederit facias & sequaris: si intellexerit & praeuiderit ta∣lem esse languorem tuum, qui in conuentu totius ecclesiae exponi debeat, & curari, ex quo fortassis & caeteri aedificari poterunt & tu ipse facilè sanari, multa hoc deliberatione, & satis perito medici illius consilio procur andum est. Onely looke about thee diligently, to whom thou maist confes thy sinne. Trie first the Phisition to whom thou must disclose the cause of thy disease; such a one as knoweth to be infirme with him that is imfirme, to weepe with him that weepeth, and hath learned to sorrow and take compassion; that so at the length, if hee shall say any thing, who before hath shewed himselfe to be a skilfull & merci∣ful Phisition; if he shall giue thee any counsell, thou maiest do and folow the same. If he shall perceiue and foresee thy disease to be such, that it must be disclosed in the assemblie of the whole congregation, & so be cured, wherby perhaps both others may be edified, & thy selfe made whole; then this must be done with great deliberation, & by the skilful counsel of the said phisition.

[ 1] Out of these words I note first, that the penitents made elec∣tion both of that they did confesse, and of the priest also to whom they did confesse. Where this day by the law of poperie, wee must confesse euery sin by compulsion, and also to our parish-priest [ 2] only. I note secondly, that we must confesse to none, but to such as we first know to be discreet and learned, & so by your fauour, we must this day confesse to few parish priests in Eu∣rope. For they are commonly sir Iohns lacke-latine, & as wise [ 3] as none of thē al. I note thirdly that when such things as were voluntarily confessed to the priest, seemed to be such as might edifie the people; then the priests exhorted to confesse the same againe, before the whole congregation. Which point conuin∣ceth plainely, that such their confessions were voluntarie, and not by constraint of law. I prooue it, because the priest may not for the safegard of his life, nor for to saue the whole world, re∣ueale

any one sinne of auricular confession, or once vrge the pe∣nitent to do the same. For so much the selfe same popish lawe teacheth, no learned papist can denie.

The replie.

That confession which Nectarius did abrogate at Constanti∣nople, was priuate and not publike, as Rhenanus thinketh. For Sozomenus, Cassiodorus, and Nicephorus, doe all three affirme iointly, that that priest was designed ouer the peni∣tents in euerie church, who was knowen to bee a discreete per∣son, and a keeper of secrecie. But doubtles in vaine was a kee∣per of secrecy chosen, where euery thing was to be published.

The answere.

The true intelligence of this storie, will bring great light to the whole matter of confession. For which respect, I will proceede so methodically in answering this obiection, as pos∣sibly I can. I therfore say first,* 1.1310 that Nectarius the B. of Con∣stantinople, vtterly abolished the law made for confession, & that to auoide the great vices, which ensued thereupon. Which being so, it must folow of necessity; that confessiō was not com∣manded by the law of God. For otherwise it shuld be in mans power (which no wise man will grant,* 1.1311) to disanull the law of God. Againe, neither the holy B. Nectarius, would euer haue attempted so to abolish gods ordinance; neither would so ma∣ny famous bishops, haue imitated his fact. And yet is it cer∣taine, that all the bishops of the east church did follow his opi∣nion; yea, euen S. Chrysostome,* 1.1312 who succeeded Nectarius at Constantinople, that goodly patriarchall seat of the world. So saith Nicephorus.

Now for the proofe of the principal point, to wit, that Nec∣tarius abandoned confession simply and wholy,* 1.1313 (which is the point that the papists do and must denie, or els forsake their po∣pery:) I proue the same first, by Thomas Waldensis a papist highly renowmed among them; who affirmeth the story so ab∣solutely, as our Iesuite Bellarmine cānot deny the same; & his reasons to the contrarie, are ridiculous and childish. For first,* 1.1314 he saith, that pope Nicholas calleth Nectarius y^e mighty aduer∣sarie of heretikes, and the defender of the church. Secondly he saith, that saint Chrysostome and many other bishops approued

Nectarius his opinion. Ergo, saith our Iesuite, he could neuer take away auricular confession. S. Chrysostome and all the bi∣shops of the East, practised the same that Nectarius appointed, and Thomas Waldensis a zealous papist vnderstandeth it of confession generally; and yet Nectarius because he was a godly man, could not abolish popish confession, saith our Iesuite. But I weene, I may better conclude; that because Nectarius was an holy man,* 1.1315 and sawe great knauerie vsed by reason of con∣fession; to wit, whoredom between the deacon and the confessio∣nist; therefore hee iustly abolished that lawe, which was only made by the power of man. For our Iesuite taketh that as graunted, that is in controuersie; which is a great fault in the Schooles, called Petitio principij. For I am so far from gran∣ting his auricular confession to be of God, that I haue copious∣ly [ 2] disproued the same already. I prooue it secondly, by the ma∣nifold testimonie of S. Chrysostome,* 1.1316 who was the next successor to this holy Nectarius. In one place he hath these words; Pecca∣ta tua dicito,* 1.1317 vt deleas illa. Si confunderis alicui dicere, quia peccasti; dicito quotidie in anima tua. Non dico vt confitea∣ris conseruo tuo, vt exprobret. Dicito Deo, qui curat ea. Tell thy sins, that thou maiest blot them out. If thou be ashamed to confesse them to any man, because thou hast sinned; confesse thē dayly in thy mind. I say not this, to cause thee to confesse them to thy fellow seruaunt; that hee may vpbraid thee. Confesse them to God,* 1.1318 that cureth them.

Againe, in another place he saith thus: Condemnasti peccatū tuum? deposuisti sarcinam. Quis haec dicit? ipse iudex tuus. Dic tu peccata tua prior, vt iustificeris; cur igitur te quaeso pudescis & erubescis dicere peccata tua? caue enim homini dixeris, ne tibi opprobret. Ne{que} enim conseruo confiteris, vt in publicum profe∣rat, sed ei qui Dominus est, ei qui tui curam gerit, ei qui huma∣nus est, ei qui medicus est ostendis vulnera. Ne{que} enim ignorat, etiamsi tu non dixeris; qui sciebat etiam antequā perpetrares. Quidigitur causae est, quo m••nus dicas: non enim ex accusatione fit grauius peccatum, imò mitius magis ac leuius: & ob hoc ipsū, Deus vult te dicere, non vt puniaris, sed vt relaxeris: non vt ipse sciat peccatum, cur enim id postulet, quum iam sciat? sed vt tuscias, quantum tibi debitum remittatur. Ideo verò vult te scire beneficii magnitudinem, vt perpetuò gratias agas, vt seg∣nior

fias ad peccandum, vt ad virtutem promptior. Nisi dixeris debiti magnitudinem non agnosces donationis eminentiam. Non inquit, cogote in medium prodire theatrum, ac multos adhibere testes: Mihi soli dic peccatum priuatim, vt sanem vlcus, te{que} do∣lore liberabo. Hast thou condemned thy sin?* 1.1319 then hast thou dis∣charged thy selfe of thy load. Who saith so? euen thine owne iudge. Tel thou thy sins first, that thou maiest be iustified. Why therefore I pray thee art thou bashfull, and ashamed to tell thy sins? beware to tel them to man, least he vpbraid thee. For thou doest not confesse them to thy fellow seruant, that hee may tell them abroad; but to him that is thy Lord, to him that hath care of thee, to him that is gentle, to him that is the phisicion doest thou shew thy woundes. For neither is he ignorant of them, al∣though thou tell them not, who knew them before thou diddest them. What then is the cause, that thou maiest not tel them? For the sin is not made greater for cōfessing it, but rather more light and easie. And for this cause will God haue thee to tell it: not for to punish thee, but for to acquite thee: not that he may know thy sin; for why should he require it, since he knoweth it already? but that thou maiest know how much debt is forgiuen thee, & therefore will he haue thee to know the greatnesse of the benefite, that thou maiest alway giue thankes, and be more slow to sinne, and more propense to vertue. Vnlesse thou tell the greatnesse of the debt, thou shalt not know the excellencie of the gift. I doe not (saith he) compell thee to come forth into the middest of the theatre, and to bring many witnesses. Tell thy sinne to mee alone priuately, that I may heale thy disease, and I will deliuer thee from thy griefe.

Againe, in another place, hee writeth thus; Non tibi dico vt te prodas in publicum neque apud alios te accuses:* 1.1320 sed obe∣dire te volo prophetae dicenti, reuela Domino viam tuam. Ante Deum ergo tua confitere peccata, apud verum iudicem cum ora∣tione delicta tua pronuntia, non linguâ sed conscientiae tuae me∣moria, & tunc demum spera te misericordiam posse consequi. I doe not bid thee come forth in publicke,* 1.1321 neither to accuse thy selfe before others: but I would haue thee to obey the pro∣phet when he saith; reueale thy way to God. Before God ther∣fore confesse thy sinnes, before the true Iudge in prayer

pronounce thine offences; not with thy tongue, but with the me∣mory of thy conscience, and then hope to haue mercie.

Againe in another place, he hath these wordes: Vos oro, fra∣tres charissimi,* 1.1322 crebrius deo immortali confiteamini, & enume∣ratis vestris delictis veniam petatis & numen propitiū. Non te in theatrum conseruorum tuorum duco, non hominibus peccata tua detegere cogo: repete coram deo conscientiam tuam, & ex∣plica: ostende Deo medico praestantissimo tua vulnera, & pete ab eo medicamentum: ostēde ei qui nihil opprobret, sed humanis∣simè curet. Cur taces quae optimè ille nouit? dicat{que} enumera, vt fructum maximum consequaris. I desire you my deere bre∣thren,* 1.1323 to confesse your sinnes often to God almightie: & when you haue reckoned vp your sinnes, then to craue his pardon and mercie. I doe not leade thee into the theatre of thy fellow ser∣uauntes, I doe not compell thee to disclose thy sinnes to men. Repeate before God thy conscience, and vnfolde it; shewe to God thy woundes, and aske him a medicine for the same: shew them to him y^t neuer vpbraideth, but cureth with all humanitie. Why doest thou conceale those things, which he knoweth right well? tell and number them, that thou maiest reape the great fruite thereof.

Againe in another place, he writeth in this maner; Confunde∣ris & erubescis peccata tua effari;* 1.1324 atqui oportebat maximè a∣pud homines eadicere & inuulgare. Confusio enim est peccare, nō est confusio confiteri peccata. Nunc autem ne{que} necessarium praesentibus testibus confiteri: cogitatione fiat delictorum exqui∣sitio, abs{que} teste sit hoc iudicium. Solus te Deus confitentē videat. Thou art confounded & ashamed to vtter thy sins, but somtime it behooued to tell and publish them, especially before men. For it is confusion to sin, but it is no confusion to confesse our sins. And this day it is not necessarie to haue witnesses present,* 1.1325 whē we confesse our sins. Let vs examine our sins in thought and cogitation, let this iudgment be without any witnesse, let God only see thee when thou confessest. Thus saith S. Chrysostome, whom I haue alledged at large, the rather to confute the Ie∣suite Bellarmine. Whom whether I haue confuted, or no, let the indifferent reader giue his censure, when he hath heard my discourse to the end. Our Iesuite wil needs saue the life of his

popishe auricular confession, though himselfe spend the best bloud in his body, in defense of the cause. In regard hereof, hee imagineth that in the time of Nectarius, not onely publique confession; but also priuate Romishe enumeration was in vse. This graue Iesuiticall consideration premised; hee telleth vs sagely, if we will beleeue him, that S. Nectarius abandoned onely publicke confession, permitting Romishe auricular con∣fession, still to remaine in force. This is the whole scope of the Iesuite, it cānot be denied.* 1.1326 And because S. Chrysostome was the next bishop in Constantinople after this holy Nectarius, & cō∣sequently must needs best know his practise; the Iesuite per∣force wil haue S. Chrysostome only to speake against publick cō∣fession, & not at al to disproue their priuate Romish mumbling.

I therefore note first, out of S. Chrysostomes wordes; that he [ 1] doth not indeed speake expressely of Romish priuate confessiō, (as which was not hatched in his time;) though virtually he do in manifest termes condemne the same. I note secondly, that he [ 2] earnestly in euery place exhorteth to confesse our sinnes to God: and withal laboureth to perswade vs; that that is enough to at∣taine remission at Gods handes.

I note thirdly, that albeit he speake an hundreth times of cō∣fession to God, yet doth he not once wil vs to confesse our selues [ 3] to man. I note fourthly, that S. Chrysostome vtterly disswadeth from confessing our sins to men. For first, hee willeth vs not to [ 4] confesse to our fellow seruants: Secondly, not to confesse with our tongue. Thirdly, not to haue any witnesse of our confession. Fourthly, to confesse only within our selues, and in our own se∣cret cogitations. Fiftly, to confesse in such maner,* 1.1327 as only God heareth vs. By all which waies and reasons, he opposeth that confession which is made to God; against that auricular confes∣sion, which our Iesuite would haue to be made to man. I note fiftly, that he saith, we are freed from confessing our sinnes to [ 5] men; which somtime we were bound to do. Where no doubt he vnderstandeth that time, in which Nectarius had not abando∣ned the law of confession. And consequently, that if we were still bound to popish auricular confession, he would haue made some mention thereof;* 1.1328 and not haue said generally and without al ex∣ception, y^t we are made free frō confessing to man. For no man

doubtlesse is free from confession, that still remaineth bound [ 6] vnto the same. I note sixtly, that if Nectarius had abandoned but one kinde of confession, and not another; S. Chrysostome being so wise and so learned, and speaking so often and so much of the one, would haue spoken at the least some one word of the other; which yet he edid not, because there was no such thing [ 3] in his time. I prooue it thirdly, because Nectarius did not on∣ly displace,* 1.1329 and put out of office the penitentiarie-priest; but withall left it to the free iudgement of euery one to come to the holy communion without confession, as euerie mans conscience mooued him. Which could no way be true; if the penitentes had bin stil bound to popish auricular confession. For (as I said before,* 1.1330) the late Romish confession at that time, was not heard of in the world. This determination of Nectarius is witnessed, not only by Socrates & Sozomenus,* 1.1331 but also by Cassiodorus and Nicephorus. I wil only alledge Nicephorus for al, whose words are these: Nectarius statuit suadentibus illis, vt cui{que} permitte∣retur, pro conscientiâ & fiduciâ suâ communicare, & de imma∣culatis mysterijs participare. Nectarius determined by their ad∣uise, (he meaneth Eudaemon of Alexandria and his complices, as writeth Socrates,) that euery one might communicate & be par∣taker of the holy mysteries, as his own conscience and faith di∣rected him. Ergo neither publicke nor yet priuate confession [ 4] was required at that time. I prooue it fourthly, because both Sozomenus and Cassiodorus after him doe say;* 1.1332 that sinnes did more abound, by reason that confession was taken away. For the confession of al sinnes, must needs bridle sin more then the confessiō of a few sins; specially of such sins as were known before. These are Sozomenus his own words: Siquidem anteà vt ego existimo, minora erant peccata, tum ob verecundiam eo∣rum qui sua ipsorum delicta ipsi enuntiabant,* 1.1333 tum ob seueritatē eorū qui iudices eius rei constituti erant. For before, as I deem, lesse sinne was done, aswel for their bashfulnesse that confessed their sins, as for their seueritie that were the iudges therof. Lo, the bashfulnes of confession was taken away by the determina∣tion of Nectarius, Ergo auricular confession, that of necessitie discloseth al sin, could by no meanes remaine. For small bash∣fulnesse, or rather none at all, proceedeth of confessing sins al∣ready

known: but confession of secret sinnes though to one only priest, bringeth great bashfulnes with it; yea,* 1.1334 such intollerable bashfulnesse & feare also, as many haue concealed many sinnes for many yeares togither. This is so manifest to euery popishe confessary; as if any denie it, his own conscience will confound him. To this it is consectary: that many haue done the same, al the daies of their life. And yet is it certain by Bellarmines own graunt, that secret sinnes were neuer confessed publickly.

I say secondly, that in the auncient church before the heresie of Nouatus, as I haue prooued out of Tertullian, Origen,* 1.1335 and [ 2] Cyprian; the penitentes both made election of their confessary, and of the sins which they did confesse. The Canons only vr∣ged them to this, to confesse publicke faultes publickly. This was the practise of the primitiue church, for the space of 250. yeares after Christes ascension.

I say thirdly, that after the heresie of Nouatus, which began [ 3] vnder the persecution of the Emperour Decius,* 1.1336 about the yere of our Lord two hundreth and threescore: the godly bishops for discipline sake, made an addition to the ecclesiasticall Canon,* 1.1337 as Socrates termeth it. That is to say, that in euery church there should be one speciall priest designed, to whom the peni∣tents should secretly confesse their publicke and greeuous sins; and after onely to confesse openly such faultes, as that wise priest shuld think cōuenient, & fit for edificatiō. For as Sozome∣nus saith, it seemed an odious thing to confesse sins publickly:* 1.1338 and as Origen writeth, the Ethincks did often deride such con∣fessiōs: therfore the church appointed, y^t not al publick sins shuld be cōfessed publickly, but such only as seemed good to the peni∣tentiary priest. I say fourthly, y^• Nectarius did abrogate this ad∣ditament (whatsoeuer it was) wholly, euē by Bellarmines own [ 4] grant, which is seriously to be obserued.* 1.1339 For as Socrates recor∣deth, this appendix or additiō conteined all those sins, which the penitents did or were bound to confesse: and consequētly,* 1.1340 it wil follow of necessitie, y^t Nectarius did abolish al confessions made to man, & the confessions of al sins totally. I proue it,* 1.1341 because both Socrates & our Iesuite doe say; that whatsoeuer the peni∣tents did confesse, the same was done to the penitentiarie priest.

[ 5] I say fiftly, that this appendice to the old Canons, whereof Socrates speaketh,* 1.1342 which conteined al the sins great and small y^t the penitents did confesse, was abrogated by Nectarius S. Chrysostomes predecessour, about the yeare of our Lord three hundreth ninetie foure,* 1.1343 throughout the East Church. Neuer∣thelesse, the former constitution made in the time of Decius a∣gainst the Nouatians, was still of force in the Romaine church. Which by degrees receiued superstitious augmentations,* 1.1344 vn∣till it got y^e Romish new no perfection, which this day is in vse.

The 1. obiection.

A man of great secrecie was chosen to bee the penitentiarie priest; which prooueth, that other faults then publick were con∣fessed to him. For such sinnes as were publickly to be reuea∣led, needed no secrecie at all.

The answere.

I answere, that the penitentes were not debarred from con∣fessing anie sin; although the canons of the church did not vrge them to confesse any faultes, saue the publique onely. And be∣cause the zealous people in the primitiue times vsed to confesse many other sins, for to haue graue and godly aduise therein; the superintendentes and ouerseers of the church (then and nowe commonly called Bishops,) appointed euery where such a con∣fessary ouer the penitentes, as was very discreete, and a keeper of secrecie. Which they did for this end and purpose, least such secret faultes as the penitentes voluntarily confessed for coun∣sell sake, should be disclosed and knowne abroad.

The replie.

* 1.1345Socrates, Sozomenus, and Nicephorus, doe all three auouch, that the penitentes confessed all their sinnes done after bap∣tisme. Which was a flat platforme and patterne of auricular confession, this day vsed in the church of Rome. Yea, Socrates addeth, that they confessed their sins particularly.

The answere.

I say first, that they all say indeed, that y^e penitentes confessed [ 1] sins done after baptisme: but no one of the three affirmeth, (as the obiection saith,) that they confessed all their sinnes com∣mitted

after baptisme; the generall signe (all) cannot be found annexed thereunto. I say secondly, that true it is, that they con∣fessed [ 2] their sins particularly; that is to say, sins the which they did confesse, were confessed distinctly; for otherwise the peni∣tents could not haue receiued instructiōs according to the con∣tentment of their minds. I say thirdly, that it is one thing to confes sins particularly, another thing to confes them totally. [ 3] For they confesse particularly,* 1.1346 that confesse their sins distinct∣ly, although they conceale many a one: but they onely confesse totally, that confesse all, both great and smal without excepti∣tion. And therefore said Socrates significantly, that they confes∣sed sinnes done after baptisme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in part, but he said not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wholy, or in all.

The second obiection.

Socrates, Sozomenus,* 1.1347 and Nicephorus do al inferre this vpon the fact of Nectarius: to wit, that we cannot henceforth reproue one an others sinnes; which illation can connotate no other thing, but publike confession onely. Therefore secret confes∣sion, remained still in force.

The answere.

I say first, that as the fact argueth al publike confession to [ 1] be taken away, so can it not conuince any secret to remaine. I say secondly, that nowe and then by your fauour, your secret [ 2] confessions haue bin disclosed. I say thirdly with Nicephorus, that stil they did confesse their sinnes that would,* 1.1348 although nei∣ther [ 3] any priest was assigned for that purpose, neither did anie constitution enforce them so to doe. I say fourthly, (and this answere confoundeth our Iesuite) that Socrates calleth the con∣fession [ 4] of sinnes after baptisme, that appendice which was ad∣ded to the ecclesiasticall canon, in the time of persecution.* 1.1349 These are his words: Ab illo tempore quo Nouatiani se ab ec∣clesia seiunxerant, recusauerant{que} cum his qui tempore persecu∣tionis regnante Decio concitatae lapsi erant, communicare, ec∣clesiarum episcopi canoni adiunxerunt, vt in singulis ecclesiis presbyter quidā poenitentiae praesset: quò, qui post baptismū lapsi fuissent coram presbytero ad eam rem designato peccata sua con∣fiterētur. From that time in which the Nouatians seuered thē∣selues from the church,* 1.1350 and refused to communicate with them that were fallen, during the persecution of the Emperour De∣cius,

the bishops of the churches added to the canō, that in eue∣ry church a priest shoud be ouer the penitents, to the end, that whosoeuer were fallen after baptisme, might confes their sins before the priest designed for that purpose. Thus writeth Socra∣tes, by whose words it is cleare, that to confesse our sins com∣mitted after baptisme, was the appendice to the canons: & yet cannot the Iesuite Bellarmine denie, that Nectarius abolished that appendice or addition; and consequently, wil he, nill he, he must likewise grant, that Nectarius disanulled the law for con∣fessing sins after baptisme. These are the expresse words of our Iesuite.* 1.1351 Non sustulit Nectarius, nisi appendicem ad veteres canones, quae accesserat initio haeresis Nouatianae. Nectarius tooke away nothing, saue onely that appendice which was ad∣ded to the olde canons, which was made in the beginning of the Nouatian heresie. And thus (me thinke) the stornie of Nectari∣us though somewhat intricate, is discussed sufficiently.

CHAP. XIII. Of the authoritie of summoning councels.

OF the force & validitie of late popish councils, I haue spo∣ken sufficiently in my booke of Motiues, Now, where the papists chalenge to their Pope, a great prerogatiue aboue the Emperour; because (as they say) he euer commanded generall councels to be holden euery where; this doctrine in this place, I purpose briefly to disproue.

The first conclusion.

* 1.1352The first general councel of Nice, (in which Arrius denying the consubstantialitie of the son of God, was condemned,) was not celebrated by the Popes appointment, (who in those daies was reputed but as other bishops;) but by the flat and expresse commandement of the Emperor Constantinus surnamed the Great, in the yere 327. This I do not barely say, but I will prooue the same after my wonted manner, by the expresse testi∣monies of approued Historiographers.* 1.1353

* 1.1354Al the fathers assembled in the sacred councel of Nice, wrote to the church of Alexandria, and to the inhabitants of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, in this expresse maner: Quoniam dei gratia & mandato sanctissimi Imperatoris Constantini, qui

nos ex varijs ciuitatibus & prouincijs in vnum congregauit, magnum & sanctum concilium Nicaenum coactum est necessariū videtur, &c. Because through the grace of God, and by the commandement of the most holy Emperor Constantine, who hath gathered vs together out of diuerse cities, and prouinces, the great and holy councel of Nice is assembled: it seemeth necessary, that the whole councell send letters to you; by which ye may vnderstād, aswel those things that were called into que¦stiō, as the things that are decided & decreed in the same. Thus writeth Socrates. Out of these words I note first; that this te∣stimonie [ 1] is of greatest credit without al exception, as which was not published by one or two, but by more then three hun∣dred bishops as writeth Nicephorus,* 1.1355 who were the most vertu∣ous & learned priests in the christian worlde. I note secondly, [ 2] these holy fathers, of this famous councel, doe not once name the Pope in their letters; so far were they in these daies, frō as∣cribing the chiefe prerogatiue in councels, to the B. of Rome. I note thirdly, that al the councel confesseth in their ioynt let∣ters [ 3] as we see, that the councel was called by the emperor, and that they all were assembled together by his commandement. Where I wish the reader, to obserue diligently the word (Cō∣mandement:* 1.1356) for if the emperor did not cal coūcels together by his own authority, but by the popes, as the papists prate; then could not this holy councel truely say, as al the fathers thereof constantly do say, to wit, that they came thither by the Empe∣rours commandement. I note fourthly, that none in the world [ 4] can better tell how the councell was called, then the fathers of the councel, who were the persons called; and yet do they ioyne the emperors commandement with the grace of God, and ex∣clude the Pope altogether.

Theodoret▪ hath these words: Ʋerum vbi spes eum fefellerat,* 1.1357 celebre illud Nicaenum concilium cogit, & publicos asinos, mu∣las, & mulos, quinetiam equos episcopis & comitibus suis ad iter faciendum vtendos dat.

Sozom. hath these words: Verū vbi contra quàm expectabat,* 1.1358 res succederet, & contentio reconciliationem concordiae, &c. But after the matter succeeded otherwise then he expected, & reconciliation was hindered with contention; and Hosius also sent to make peace, returned leauing y^e thing vndone; y^e empe∣ror

appointeth a councel at Nice a city in Bythinia, & writeth to the presidents of al churches to be presēt at a day appointed.

* 1.1359Niceph. hath these words: Infectis reb. ad imperatorē rediit, qui ad pacem componendam missus fuerat, Hosius. Ita{que} impera∣tor, &c. Hosius that was sent to make peace, returned to the Emperour, not hauing accomplished the matter. Therfore the Emperour perceiuing the mischife to grow to a head, doth pro∣clame the famous councel of Nice in Bythinia, and by his let∣ters calleth al bishops thither at the day appointed. Thus wee see euidently by the vniforme testimonie of foure graue Histo∣riographers, whereof three liued more then a 1100. yeares a∣go: that the bishop of Rome had no more to do in general coun∣cels, then other bishops had. First, they tel vs, that the Empe∣rour sent Hosius the bishop of Corduba,* 1.1360 to bring the contenti∣ous to vnitie. Secondly, when that would not take place, that hee proclaimed a councell to bee holden at Nice in Bythinia. Thirdly, that he cōmanded al bishops to come thither at a cer∣tain day apointed. But of the B. of Rome, neuer a word at al.

The second Conclusion.

The second generall councell of Constantinople, holden a∣gainst Macedonius and his complices, for denying the diuinity of the holy ghost, was called by the commandement of the em∣perour Theodosius the first,* 1.1361 about the yeare of our Lord 389.

Socrates hath these words, Imperator nulla mora interposita; concilium episcoporum ipsius fidem amplectentium conuocat;* 1.1362 quo tum fides concilii Nicaeni corroboraretur, &c (The emperor Theodosius) with al expedition calleth a councel of bishops em∣bracing the right faith, that aswel the faith of the Nicene coun∣cell might be confirmed, as that a bishop might be appointed at Constantinople, & because he was in hope to make the Ma∣cedonians, to agree with the bishops that held the right faith, he sent forthe bishops that were of the Macedonian sect.

* 1.1363Sozomenus hath these words; Breui deinde concilium episco∣porum sibi consententium cōuocauit partim vt Nicaeni concilii decreta confirmarentur, patrim vt ordinaretur aliquis qui Con∣stantinopolitanae sedis episcopatum administraret. Then shortly after (Theodosius) called a councel of Bishoppes that agreed with him, partly that the decrees of the Nicene councell might be confirmed, & partly that one might be appointed B. at Con∣stantinople.

Sigebertus writeth in this maner;* 1.1364 Secunda synodus vniuersa∣lis 150. patrum congregatur Constantinopoli, iubente Theo∣sio & annuente Damaso papa, quae Macedonium negantem spi∣ritum sanctum Deum esse condemnans, consubstantialem patri & filio spiritum sanctum esse docuit. The second general sy∣node of an hundred and fifty bishops is assembled at Constan∣nople, by the commandement of Theodosius, Damasus agree∣ing thereunto; in which councell Macedonius, who denied that the holy ghost was God, was condemned, & the consubstan∣tialitie of the holy ghost with the father and the sonne was con∣firmed in the same.

Nicephorus, Theodoretus and Prosper,* 1.1365 teach the same doc∣trine, whose words for breuitie sake I here omit.

The third conclusion.

The third generall councel, being the first Ephesine; of two hundred bishops, was proclaimed by the commandement of the Emperour Theodosius the yonger, against Nestorius denying the virgin Mary to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.1366 and affirming Christ to haue two persons, prouing that two natures did subsist in one onely per∣son of Christ Iesus, in the yere of our Lord 433.

Euagrius hath these words;* 1.1367 Haec nefaria Nestorij dogmata cum Cyrillus episcopus Alexandria vir, &c. When Cyrillus the bishop of Alexander, a man of great renowned, had distinct∣ly confuted the wicked opinions of Nestorius, and Nestorius for al that gaue no place to his writings, neither obeyed Cyril∣lus nor the councell of Caelestinus the bishop of old Rome, but licentiously powred out his poyson against the church:* 1.1368 then Cyrillus made sute to Theodosius the yonger, who at that time was Emperour in the East, that by his will and authortie a councell might be called at Ephesus. The Emperour vppon this sent his letters to Cyrillus, and to the other presidents of the churches, appointing the assembly to bee vppon Whitsun∣day, at what time the holy Ghost came downe vnto vs.

Nicephorus hath these words;* 1.1369 Theodosius imperialibus lite∣ris suis in metropoli Ephesi locorū omnium episcopos conuenire iussit, sacram▪ &c. Theodosius commanded by his imperiall letters that all bishoppes should meete in the metropolitaine church of Ephesus, at the day of Pentecost (which wee call Whitsunday;) for on that day, the holy ghost came vppon the

Apostles. He added this to his letters, that no man shoulde ex∣cuse himselfe either before God or the worlde; but that euerie one should be there present at the day appointed.

* 1.1370Cassiodorus hath these words; Non multo post tempore, iussio principis episcopos vndi{que} Ephesum conuenire praecepit. No long time after the commandement of the Emperor (Theodosius) charged the bishops to come from euery place to Ephesus.

* 1.1371Sigebertus hath these words, Tertia synodus vniuersalis E∣phesina prima, ducentorum episcoporum, iussu Theodosii iunioris Augusti aedita est, quae. Nestorium, &c. The third general councel the first Ephesine of 200. bishoppes, was celebrated by the commandement of the emperor Theodosius the yonger, which councell iustly condemned Nestorius affirming Christ to haue two persons, shewing that two natures in Christ did subsist in one person.

The fourth conclusion.

* 1.1372The fourth generall councel of Chalcedon against Eutiches, who affirmed Christ to haue but one onely nature after the hy∣postaticall vnion, although hee granted him to haue had two before the coniunction thereof; was called by the commande∣ment of the emperour Martian, in the yeare of our Lord, 454.

Socrates hath these words, Passimque in historia impera∣torum mentionem propterea fecimus,* 1.1373 quod ex illo tempore quo Christiani esse coeperunt, ecclesiae negotia ex illorum nutu pen∣dere visa sunt, at{que} adeo maxima concilia de eorundem senten∣tia & conuocata fuerunt & adhuc cōuocantur. I haue therfore made mention of the emperours in euerie place of my hystory, because since that time in which they became Christians, the af∣faires of the church depended vppon their good wil and plea∣sures: in regard whereof, most famous councels were then cal∣led by their appointment, and are so caled euē to this day. Out of these words I note first, that Socrates was a famous greeke Historiographer. I note secondly, that hee liued aboue 400. yeares after Christs sacred incarnation. I note thirdly, that the end for which he made mention of the Emperours, was to de∣clare that the chiefest matters of the church did depend on their good pleasures. I note fourthly, that councels were euermore appointed by authoritie of the Emperors, euen to the dayes of Socrates, which was 400. yeares after Christ. These obser∣uations

well marked, this Corollarie followeth of necessitie, that the vsual practise of the ancient Christian Apostolike and Catholike church, doth flatly ouerthrow all Poperie, and late Romish abhomination.

Nicephorus hath these words: Earum rerum gratia,* 1.1374 impera∣torum literis, locorum omnium episcopis conuocatis, synodus Chalcedone est coacta. In regard of these matters, a councell was called at Chalcedon, and all bishops sent for thither, by force of the Emperours letters.

Sigebertus hath these words;* 1.1375 Instantia Leonis papae iubent imperatore Martiano, congregata & habita est quarta vniuer∣salis synodus sexcentorum & triginta episcoporum apud Chal∣cedonem. The fourth generall councel of six hundreth & thirtie bishops,* 1.1376 was holden in Chalcedon by the commandement of the Emperour Martian, at the request of Pope Leo. Loe, the Pope could but request; to command was in the Emperours power. Euagrius in the second booke and second chapter of his hystorie, teacheth the selfe same veritie.

The 5. conclusion.

The Emperor euermore had the chiefest place in councels, which thing is an euident confirmation of the former conclusi∣ons.

Sozomenus hath these words; Vbi autem venit praestituta dies,* 1.1377 in qua, &c. And when the day appointed came, that they shuld decide the cōtrouersies, the bishops come together into the pa∣lace, as the emperor had decreed,* 1.1378 that he might consult with them of the matters. And when he came to the place where the priests were, he passed by to the highest roome of y^e assemblie, and sate downe in a chaire prepared for him, and commanded al that were present in the councell to sit downe.

Out of these words I note first, that all the bishops came at the emperors appointment, to attend his maiesty at the time & [ 1] place by him designed. I note secondly, that he consulted with them, for and concerning the controuersies of religion; as who [ 2] knew right well, that the vnitie and peace of Christs church pertained to his charge. I note thirdly, that he had the highest place in y^e councel. I note 4. that bishops did not sit down vntil [ 3] [ 4]

the Emperour commanded them so to do.

The famous popish archbishop and Cardinall Panormita∣nus, hath these golden words, to the great comfort of all true Christians,* 1.1379 & the confusion of al papists: Ipse autem Imperator repraesentat totum populū christianum, cū in eum translata sit iu∣risdictio & potestas vniuersi orbis: loco ipsorū hoc ergo popu∣lorum▪ &c. But the emperour representeth al christian people, because the iurisdiction and power of all the world is imposed vpon him. Therefore in steede of the people, the Emperor cal∣leth councels; and for this purpose is it, that the calling of councels was euer done by the emperor, as is alreadie said; but afterward it was reserued to the Pope.

[ 1] Out of these words I note first, that the testimonie of this Panormitaine must needes be forcible against the papists, be∣cause he was their owne popish Abbot, their Canonist, their [ 2] archbishop, their Cardinal. I note secondly, that the Emperor hath the chiefest iurisdiction ouer all the christian world, euen [ 3] ouer the Pope of Rome. I note thirdly, that in respect of his vniuersall and supreme iurisdiction, hee hath authoritie to call [ 4] councels. I note fourthly, that in the primitiue church al coun∣cels were called, by the authoritie of the Emperour. I note [ 5] fiftly, that in processe of time, the Emperour of Rome yeelded vp his authorittie of calling councels, to his bishop of Rome: by which grant and the like, the Pope at length abused all the world.

The veritie and infallibilitie of this conclusion is so manifest and irrefragable, that the Iesuite Bellarmine cannot denie the same. And therefore he is enforced to excuse the Popes ab∣sence from councels, because he could not sit aboue the Em∣peror: his words are alleaged in my booke of Motiues. By this testimonie, the Popes humilitie doth sufficiently appeare; and for affinitie sake, I will adioyne the testimonie of an other Monke, for his tyrannie.

Sigebertus a Monke, and therefore must bee of good credit with monkish Iesuits and other papists, after he hath discour∣sed largely of the popes tyranny, and namely of the monke Odo alias Otto, who aspiring to the Popedome named himselfe Vrbanus the second,* 1.1380 addeth these words: Vt pace omnium bo∣norum dixerim, haec sola nouitas, non dicam haeresis, nondum in

mundo emerscrat, vt sacerdotes illius qui regnare facit hypocri∣tam propter peccata populi, doceant populum quod malis regibus nullam debeant subiectionem, & licet ei sacramentum fidelitatis fecerint, nullam tamen debeant fidelitatem, nec periuri dicantur qui contra regem senserint: imò qui regi paruerit, pro excom∣municato habeatur, qui contra regem fecerit noxâ iniustitiae & periurij absoluatur. To speake by the fauour of al good men, this sole noueltie, I will not say heresie, was not yet knowne in y^e world; that his priests, who causeth an hypocrite to raigne for the sinnes of the people, should teach the people, that they owe no subiection to wicked kings, and that although they haue ta∣ken the othe of fidelitie, yet doe they owe them no allegeance, neither are they periured that think any thing against the king: Yea, hee that obeyeth the king is reputed an excommunicate person, and hee that taketh parte against the king, is absolued from iniustice and periurie. Thus we see poperie to be heresie, and the Popes to be heretikes and wicked men, as their owne Monke Sigebertus teacheth vs.

CHAP. XIIII. Of the Bishops of Rome, after Pho••as had made it the head of all churches.

THe byshops of Rome hauing obtained the supremacie,* 1.1381 by the imperiall grant of Phocas that parricide and cruel ty∣rant; heaped mischiefe vpon mischiefe, and neuer made an end thereof. And that which I do here report of them, shalbe truely and sincerely collected out of their own deare friends, Sigeber∣tus Gemblacensis, Marianus Scotus, Bartholomaeus Carranza, & Martinus Polonus. Whereof the first 3. were popish monkes, and the fourth a famous popish archbishop; so that whatsoeuer they say of the Popes, must needes bee of credit with the pa∣pists. For doubtles they did not write any thing of any Pope, which the verie truth did not enforce them vnto: as who were most vnwilling, to discouer the trupitude of their disholy fa∣thers. And Platina their renowmed Abbreuiator Apostolicus may be the fift witnesse, and Polydorus the sixt, if neede shall so require. This general preface I make once for al, lest I be te∣dious to the reader, in the often repetition of my witnesses.

Pope Bonifacius the third with much ado obtained of Pho∣cas

(after he had cruelly murdered the emperor Mauritius with his wife & children) that Rome should be y^e head of al churches: because before that time, the church of Constantinople had the chiefe prerogatiue of al patriarchall seates.* 1.1382 So that popish pri∣macie (as we see) ensued vpō most bloudy tyranny: Anno. 607.

* 1.1383Pope Constantinus of a lay man was made a priest, and by tyrannical ambitiō inuaded the Popedom, to the great scandal of Christs church. But shortly after through the zeale of the faithful,* 1.1384 hee was depriued of his pontifical magnificence, and both his eies plucked out, Anno. 765.

Pope Iohn the eight of y^t name, be lying her sexe; & clad in mans attire,* 1.1385 with great admiration of hir sharpe wit & singu∣lar learning, was chosen to be the pope of Rome. Shortly af∣ter by the familiar helpe of her beloued companion, she brought forth y^e homely fruits of her popedome, An 855. This history of Pope Iohn is handled at large in the chapter of succession,* 1.1386 or rather of popish primacie: & if it be not true, then doubtlesse smal credit can be giuen to any popish traditions: for approued popish writers, affirme it to be as I haue said.

* 1.1387Pope Adrian the third, made a law, that the Emperor shuld not deale with y^e election of y^e pope. Where we may behold the ambitious minds, & the tyrannicall proceedinges of the late bi∣shops of Rome. This was done Anno 886. About this time, Italie reuolted from the emperour.* 1.1388

* 1.1389Pope Formosus was a periured person. For pope Iohn de∣graded him bringing him to laicall state again, after he had bin the B. of Portua. He further took him sworn, y^t he neither shuld be bishop, nor euer returne to y^e citie of Rome. Yet pope Mar∣tin absolued him from his oth; and after a fewe yeares he did not only come to the city,* 1.1390 but also was Pope, Anno. 892.

* 1.1391Pope Stephanus the sixt, persecuteth pope Formosus after his death. He calleth a councel, & disanulleth al the degrees of pope Formosus his predecessour. He causeth his body to be brought forth into his consistory; y^e papall induments to be taken away; a laicall habite to be put on the dead corpse; two fingers of his right hand to be cut off; and that done, his body to be put into the graue. And what was the cause I pray you, of this great stomacke against Formosus? Verily because this Ste∣phanus sought to haue bin pope before him; and where his am∣bitious

intent was preuented by Formosus,* 1.1392 hee auenged him as a right Romaine, vpon his dead corpes: in the yeare 898.

Pope Iohn the ninth called a councell of 74. bishops,* 1.1393 and disanulled the decrees of that Synode which pope Stephanus held against Formosus. Behold y^e sweet christian vnitie,* 1.1394 amongst the holy popes of Rome. This was done, in the yeare 900.

Pope Sergius the 3. caused Formosus,* 1.1395 (who now had bin dead almost ten yeares,) to be taken out of his tombe, & to be set in a chaire with pontifical attire vpon his backe: that done, he com∣māded his head to be cut off, & to be cast into Tyber. And what offence trow ye, had this Formosus done? doubtlesse, because Formosus had kept him from the Popedom.* 1.1396 This was done in the yeare of our Lord, 907.

Iohn the 10. the sonne of Sergius the third,* 1.1397 sometime bishop of Rauennas, came to the popedome by violent meanes, and for that respect, the people shortly after deposed him, Ann. 917.* 1.1398

Pope Iohn the 12. was made pope by violent means for his father Albericus being a man of great power & might,* 1.1399 enfor∣ced the nobles to take an oth; that after the death of pope Aga∣pitus, they would promote his son Octauianus to the popedome. Which othe was accomplished, and he was named Iohn. He was a great hunter, and a man of licentious life. He kept wo∣men openly, to the notorious scandall of the church. Insomuch, that some of the cardinals wrote to Otto king of the Saxons, to come and besiege Rome. Which the pope perceiuing, commā∣ded that Cardinals nose to be cut off that gaue the counsell, and his hand that wrote the letters. This pope being often admo∣nished by the Emperor and clergie, and neuer giuing any signe of amendement; was deposed in the presence of the Emperor, and pope Leo chosen in his stead; in the yere of our Lord, 968. The Romains chose another pope in the time of this Leo,* 1.1400 who named himselfe Benedictus the fift; for which cause when the Emperour Otto besieged Rome, Benedictus was deliuered to him, whom hee banished and restored Leo to the popedome. This Benedictus died in Saxony the place of his exile, and was buried in Hamburge. But Pope Iohn delighted still with adulterie, died without repentance sodainely.* 1.1401

Pope Iohn the 13. was apprehended by Peter the Prefect of the city, & imprisoned in Pont-Angelo, and after that driuen

into exile into Campania:* 1.1402 10. monethes and eighteene dayes being expired, he returned to Rome by the assistance of the em∣perour, and auenged himself of his persecuters: wherof he slew some, hanged other some, and banished the rest into the confines of Saxonie, in the yeare of our Lord, 970.

* 1.1403Pope Benedictus the sixt, after he had been pope one yere & 6. monthes was strangled with wormwood in Pont-angelo, in the yere of our Lord,* 1.1404 978.

Pope Bonifacius the 7. was made pope by the Romanes, after they had thratled Benedictus the sixt.* 1.1405 Who afterward not able to tarry in the citie, robbed S. Peters church of al the trea∣sure in it, and fled to Constantinople. At length he returned to Rome with a great summe of money, and when hee coulde not preuaile, he pluckt out a Cardinal-deacons eies, in the yeare of our Lord,* 1.1406 980. And here note by the way, that some Cardinals are deacons, some priestes, some bishops: neuerthelesse, he that is but a deacon, is of greater authoritie, then any bishop or arch∣bishop whosoeuer in the popish sect.

Pope Syluester the second was first a monke, a Frenchman borne,* 1.1407 Gilbertus by name. He promised homage to the deuill, so long as he did accomplish his desires. Who being very ambiti∣ous, did so often expresse his desire to the deuill, as he made ho∣mage vnto him. He was first made archbishop of Rhemes, then at Rauennas, at the last pope of Rome. For the diuel know∣ing his ambitious minde, brought him to honour by degrees. Being made pope, hee must needes know of the diuell, howe long he should liue in his pontificall glory. The diuell answe∣red him,* 1.1408 so long as he did not say masse in Hierusalem. The pope receiuing that answere, was verie ioyfull within himself: hoping to be so farre from dying, as he was farre in mind from going to say masse in Hierusalem beyond the sea. It chaunced that in Lent the pope said masse, in the church Sanctae crucis, which they call, in Hierusalem, my self know the place. It see∣meth that the pope infatuated with pride and honour, had quite forgot the name. While he was at masse (O holy sacrifice!) he heard a great noise of diuels, and so both remembred the place, and his death to be at hand. Wherefore he wept (although be∣fore most wicked,) disclosing his offence to all the companie, and nothing doubting of Gods mercie. Withal, he commanded

to cut away from his bodie, all the members with which he had done sacrifice to the diuell. He was buried in Lateran church,* 1.1409 in the yeare of our Lord, 1007.

Pope Benedictus the 8. was seene after his death as it were corporally riding vpon a blacke horse. The bishop that saw him spake thus vnto him. Art not thou pope Benedict, whom wee know to be lately dead? I am saith hee, that vnfortunate Bene∣dict. But how is it with thee father, saith the bishop? I am now in great torment saith the pope, and therefore woulde I haue some money to be giuen to the poore, because all that I gaue the poore aforetime, was gotten by robbery and extortion.* 1.1410 This was done, in the yeare of our Lord, 1032.

Pope Benedictus the 9. was depriued of his popedome,* 1.1411 & one Syluester placed in his roome. This Syluester was deposed, and Benedictus recouered the popedome againe. Yet this Benedict was cast out again, and another put in his place. Which other was so ignorant, that he could not say masse, but as one did in∣struct him. For which cause he was put out,* 1.1412 and another placed in his roome, in the yeare of our Lord, 1042.

Pope Clemens the second,* 1.1413 came to his popedome by violent meanes, in the yeare of our Lord, 1058.* 1.1414

Pope Damasus the second inuaded the popedome,* 1.1415 and had a sodaine death, in the yeare of our Lord 1060.* 1.1416

About the yeare of our Lord 1072. one Mathildis a moste mightie and rich countesse, gaue all her landes,* 1.1417 goods and pos∣sessions to S. Peter, which is by interpretatiō, to the pope; and it is this day called S. Peters patrimonie. Such oblations as these, made the pope so mightie as he is.

Pope Anastasius the 4. made a new pallace in Sancta Maria rotunda,* 1.1418 and gaue to the Lateran church a chalice of curious works, abbut the weight of twentie markes,* 1.1419 in the yeare 1162. Thus popes wickednesse, mischiefe, and tyrannie, I finde euery where, but that any one pope since Bonifacius claimed the pri∣macie, (which is more then 900. yeares since,) made any one sermon in all his life, I cannot reade. I might here speake of the vanitie of Romish cardinals, as that one cardinall bestow∣eth yerely 4000. crownes for the keeping and vpbolding of his most curious garden at Tyuola. It is foureteene English miles from Rome, my selfe haue seene the same. Free accesse is gran∣ted

to all sortes of people, such is his glory to haue it seene.

* 1.1420Pope Bonifacius the 8. made a constitution, in which he cal∣led himself Lord spirituall and temporall of the whole world. Whereupon he required Philip the French king, to acknow∣ledge that he held his kingdome of him: which when the king refused to doe, hee gaue his kingdome to another. This was done Anno. 1302.* 1.1421 This pope entred as a foxe, reigned as a Wolfe, and died as a dog: so doe they write of him.

CHAP. XV. Of certaine popish sects, which they terme the or∣ders of religious men.

WHatsoeuer I shal set down of these sects or religious or∣ders, as the papistes must needs haue them termed; shal be truely and sincerely collected out of these popishe historio∣graphers: to wit, Martinus Polonus, Philippus Bergomensis, Polyd. Ʋirgilius, Palmerius, Platina, and Ar. Pontacus Burde∣galensis. Which I here for once admonish, least the often repe∣tition thereof should be tedious.

Benedictus an Italian, the father of all monkes, erected an Abbay in the mount Cassinum,* 1.1422 and instituted the sect of the Be∣nedictines;* 1.1423 about the yeare 527. These monkes in a short time began to be dissolute, and were deuided into many new sectes; whereof same were called Cluniacenses, some Camalduenses, some Vallisumbrenses, some Montoliuotenses, some Grandimon∣tēses, some Cistertienses, some Syluestrenses. Al which being most variable in life,* 1.1424 maners, & obseruations, wil for al that be right Benedictines. Euē forsooth as our late popes must needs be S. Peters successors, thogh they be as like as York & foul Suttō.

This sect of the Benedictines far altered from the first insti∣tutiō,* 1.1425 was reformed in y^e yere 1335. For as Polydore grauely reporteth, monks do not lōg obserue their monastical institutiō.

The sect of the Carthusians, was ordained by one Bruno, in y^e yere 1084.* 1.1426 How this sect had the first originall, it is worthy of due attention.* 1.1427 This is the story. While Bruno was the rea∣der of philosophy at Paris in France, it chanced that a friend of his being a man of good external life, died; who lying dead vpō the coffin in the church, soundeth out these words in the eares of the said Bruno, I am damned by the iust iudgment of God. By

which miracle Bruno was so terrified, y^t hee knew no way how to be saued, but by inuenting the sect of the Carthusians. Behold here the subtletie of the deuil, who wanteth no means how to set vp superstition & idolatry. For if the story be true, as I think it was in deed, then doubtlesse the voice came from the diuel, as which brought forth y^e spirit of pride & not of humility. I proue it, because this Bruno could not be cōtent to be a monk amongst the Benedictines, but he must be Lord Abbot of a new sect. For since the order of the Benedictines, was the ready way to heauē, as popery taught him: either he condemned his own religion, & consequently his own institutiō, or my consecution must be ad∣mitted. Let what papist as list reply▪ my reason can not be cō∣uinced. And here I note by the way,* 1.1428 the formal deformitie of al the sects or orders in poperie; to wit, that the papistes ascribe merite and saluation to the same. Let therefore this story of our holy father Bruno neuer be forgotten.

The order called ••raemonstratensis,* 1.1429 began the yeare 1119. The first authour thereof was one Norbertus by name.* 1.1430 Who doubtles either con••emned the former orders, at the least of im∣perfection; or els was puffed vp with the spirit of pride, as were his predecessors his fraterculi before him.

The sect of the Carmelites began in y^• yere 1170. & was insti∣tuted by one Almericus y^e bishop of Antioch. This sect,* 1.1431 * 1.1432 though it had the original in the time mentioned; yet was it not in full perfection, for the space of 40. yeres to come.

The sect of Dominicans (whereof Tho. Aquinas, surnamed Angelicus was one,) began in the yere 1198.* 1.1433 The authour of this sect was one Dominicus Calaguritanus, a Spaniard borne.* 1.1434 The sect it selfe was termed, Ordo fratrum praedicatorum.

The sect of the Franciscans began in y^e yere 1206.* 1.1435 Of which sect was Io. Scotus,* 1.1436 surnamed D. Subtilis The author of this sect was one Franciscuss Asisiates, an Italian born. The sect it self was termed, Ordo fratrum minorum. Thus we see y^t these Romish sects were multiplied, as if it were swarmes of Bees.

The sect of the Iesuates,* 1.1437 began in the yeare of our Lord 1371. the author of this sect was one Ioannes Columbinus Se∣nensis; the sect it selfe was termed, ordo Iesuatorum.* 1.1438

The sect of the Iesuites,* 1.1439 began in the yeare of our Lord 1540. The author thereof was one Ignatius Loyola,* 1.1440 a souldier

and a Spaniard borne.* 1.1441 The moonkes of this sect, as they were hatched after al others, so doe they in pontificall pride exceed al the rest. This sect is termed, ordo societatis Iesu; the verie name expressing their proud and hauty mindes. For no name of so many sectes before them, nor any other appellation could content them; vnlesse they be termed fellowes, and compani∣ons with Iesus Christ. They are indeede so proud and stately, that where euery other Romish sect hath some cardinall to be their protector; they only (to die for it) wil haue none at al. And why? because forsooth they will depend vpon none, neither sub∣mit themselues to any, saue to the pope alone: to whom I weene they wil be subiect, because they can no other doe. They are not only proud, but very factious people. They are hated generally of all sortes of men: they cherish themselues, and seek to ouerrule all others. They employ some of their sect to no o∣ther end, but only to looke into matters of state: that so by para∣siticall informations made to the pope, they may leade all the world in a string.

The Perioch.

First therfore, since popish primacie began in the yere 607. [ 1] Secondly, since priests marriage was neuer prohibited, til the [ 2] yere 385. Thirdly, since popes pardōs were neuer heard of til [ 3] the yere 1300. Fourthly, since popish purgatory tooke no root [ 4] in the Romish church, til the yere 250. Fiftly, since inuocation [ 5] of saints & adoration was not known, til the yere 370. Sixtly, [ 6] since popish pilgrimage began in the yeere 420. Seuenthly, [ 7] since the merite of works de condigno, was disputable about the yere 1081. Eightly, since the communion vnder both kindes [ 8] was neuer thought vnlawful, til the yere 1414. Ninthly, since [ 9] the popes buls were not authenticall, til the yere 772. Tenth∣ly, [ 10] since auricular confession was not established, till the yeere 254. Eleuenthly, since general councels were euer summoned [ 11] by the emperours, & many like matters of importance, as may appeare by this smal volume; I may reasonably conclude, that al men careful of their saluation, wil detest from their hearts al popish faction. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Victor. de pot. pap. relect. 4. pag. 151.
• * 1.2

  Carr. in Epit. conc. pag. 369.
• * 1.3

  August. libr. ad Bonefaccium, c. 4 ••o 7.
• * 1.4

  Victor. de potest· Eccl. relec. ••. sect. 6.
• * 1.5

  P. 39. Poly••••▪ Virg libr. 4. cap. ••.
• * 1.6

  Anno Dom 590.
• * 1.7

  Gregor. lib••. 7 Epist. cap. 194.
• * 1.8

  Anno Dom 607.
• * 1.9

  Nicephor, Sigeb••••••.
• * 1.10

  Loe, whoredome and murder, were the preparitiues to Romish pri∣macie
• * 1.11

  Marianus Scotus in Chron.
• * 1.12

  Sigebert. in in Chron.
• * 1.13

  Palmer in Chro.
• * 1.14

  Note this point well.
• * 1.15

  Eusebius. hist. lib. 5. cap. 24.
• * 1.16

  Cyprian.
• * 1.17

  Epist. 74. ad Pomp.
• * 1.18

  Act. 4. ver. 17.
• * 1.19

  Epist conc. Affr. ad Celest. tom. 1. conc.
• * 1.20

  Conc. Nic. can. •• dist. 35. cap. Mos. antiquus, in gloss.
• * 1.21

  The first reason
• * 1.22

  Clemens, ep. 1. Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap, 3. Epiphan. Haer. 27. Euseb. hist. lib. 3. ca. 13, 14, 15,
• * 1.23

  The second rea∣son.
• * 1.24

  Onuphr. in chron
• * 1.25

  Carranz. in epit. p. 370. &. p, 373.
• * 1.26

  The third reason
• * 1.27

  1. Tim. 2. v. 11, 12. 1. Cor. 14. ver. 39
• * 1.28

  Seuen popish ap∣proued writers, agree to this sto∣rie of Pope Iohn·
• * 1.29

  Palmerius & Si∣gebertus in chro.
• * 1.30

  Bernard. ad Gau∣frid. epist. 1 25
• * 1.31

  Aug. co••••r. ep. Manich. cap. 4.
• * 1.32

  Irene. libr. 4. c. 43
• * 1.33

  Ephes. 4. v. 11.
• * 1.34

  Ephes. 4. v. 11.
• * 1.35

  Lyranus in 16, cap. Matth.
• * 1.36

  Rom. 10.14.
• * 1.37

  Epiphan. lib. 3. pag. 355. Hier. contr. Lu∣cifer.
• * 1.38

  2. Tim. 1.6. 1. Tim. 4.14. Actes. 13 ver. 3. Act. 1. ve. 21.
• * 1.39

  Aug. in Epist. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.
• * 1.40

  ••pud. D. Cypria. b. 1. epist. 4.
• * 1.41

  Iacod. Pamelius in annot.
• * 1.42

  Anno Dom. 590
• * 1.43

  Ob. 1. Pamelii▪
• * 1.44

  Ob. 2. Pameli••▪
• * 1.45

  Virtuall election remaineth yet in the people▪
• * 1.46

  The Pope must be confirmed by the letters pa∣tents of the Prince.
• * 1.47

  Platina in vita Pelagii secundi.
• * 1.48

  Platina in vita Seuerini.
• * 1.49

  Anno Dom 637
• * 1.50

  Platina in vita Bened. secundi.
• * 1.51

  Carranza in epit. p. 301.
• * 1.52

  Anastas. apud O∣nuphr. in ch••••i∣co.
• * 1.53

  The first corol∣larie
• * 1.54

  Anno Dom 684
• * 1.55

  The popes tyran¦ny debarred vs ••rom our an••ient right.
• * 1.56

  The second co∣rollarie.
• * 1.57

  The third corol∣••••rie.
• * 1.58

  ••phes. 4. vers. 11.
• * 1.59

  Ephes. 4. vers. 13.
• * 1.60

  Ier. 18. v. 18.
• * 1.61

  Ezech. 7. ver. 26
• * 1.62

  Ephes. 4. v. 14
• * 1.63

  Let this solution be wel obserued, and neuer for∣gotten.
• * 1.64

  Esay. 46. verse 10 Psal. 135. ver. 6.
• * 1.65

  Rom. 9. ver. 19
• * 1.66

  Exod. 4. ver. 22 Math. 23. ver. 37
• * 1.67

  1. Tim. 2. v. 4
• * 1.68

  Mat. 20. ver. 16
• * 1.69

  Voluntas signi non beneplaciti.
• * 1.70

  Ephes. 4. v. 14.
• * 1.71

  Marke this well for Christes sake.
• * 1.72

  1. Tim. 2.4
• * 1.73

  Mat. 20. ver. 17
• * 1.74

  Ephes. 2. ver. 10
• * 1.75

  Exod. 18.20. Deut. 6.5. Luc. 10.28. Math. 22.37. Mar. 12.29.
• * 1.76

  Rom. 7. per totum.
• * 1.77

  Bellar. lib. 2. de conc. c. 2.
• * 1.78

  Numb. 22.28.
• * 1.79

  Euery bishop may erre.
• * 1.80

  Panorm. de elec•• cap. significati. p••ope finem.
• * 1.81

  A lay mans iudg∣ment is to be preferred before the popes.
• * 1.82

  Loe▪ the papistes acknowledge our doctrine.
• * 1.83

  3. Reg 19.10
• * 1.84

  3 Reg. 15 & 18. & 22. 3. Paral. c. 16. &c. 17.
• * 1.85

  Rom. 11. v. 3.
• * 1.86

  The church inui∣sible among the papistes.
• * 1.87

  1. Tim. 3 15.
• * 1.88

  Note how the Church cannot erre.
• * 1.89

  August. in Psal. 47. in praef.
• * 1.90

  Vide Augusti. lib. 7. de bapt. c. 51. tom. 6.
• * 1.91

  Chrys. homil. 11. in 1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.92

  Ansel. super hunc locum.
• * 1.93

  Syluest. de eccl. §. 4.
• * 1.94

  Panormit. apud Sylues. de fide §. 9
• * 1.95

  Vide ipsum Pa∣normi•• de electi∣one, cap. signifi∣casti.
• * 1.96

  can. 14. quaest. •• can. a recta, in glossa.
• * 1.97

  Mat. 28.20.
• * 1.98

  Chrys. in cap. 5•• Mat. hom. 15. tom. 2.
• * 1.99

  Agu. in Epist. 80. prop•• finem. tom 2. pag. 238.
• * 1.100

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 16.••3.
• * 1.101

  The holyghost ••aught no new ••octrine, but onely reuealed ••he true sense of such things ••s the Apostles did not vnder∣••••and.
• * 1.102

  Iohn. 14 vers. 26.
• * 1.103

  It is the selfe same doctrine but more plainly declared.
• * 1.104

  Canus de locis lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.105

  Mat. 16. vers. 18.
• * 1.106

  Aug. de verb. Dom. ser. 13.
• * 1.107

  These are most plaine words.
• * 1.108

  Chrys. serm de p••nt. tom▪ 3.
• * 1.109

  Saint Bede hold∣eth the same opi∣nion.
• * 1.110

  Hila••. de Trinit. lib. 6. P. 103.
• * 1.111

  Gloss. in mat. 16. See Panormitan, de electione, cap. significasti.
• * 1.112

  Luke. 22. ver, 32.
• * 1.113

  Three grants of the papists do vterly ouerthrow the popes sup∣posed priuiledge.
• * 1.114

  Ioh. 27. vers. 9
• * 1.115

  Ioh. 17. vers. 20.
• * 1.116

  Matt. 18.19, 20.
• * 1.117

  The second rea∣son.
• * 1.118

  Aug. in quaest. mixtis. q 75. to. 4
• * 1.119

  Orig. homil. ••. in Matth,
• * 1.120

  An argument insoluble.
• * 1.121

  The third reason.
• * 1.122

  Panorm. apud Syluest. de fide §. 9. de conc. §. 3
• * 1.123

  The place is wor¦thie to be noted.
• * 1.124

  Alphons. lib. 1. de haeres. c. 4.
• * 1.125

  Ioh, 21. vers. 16
• * 1.126

  August. de agon. Christ c. 30. to. 3.
• * 1.127

  Let the seely vulgar papists note well this proposition.
• * 1.128

  Ierem. 1.1. 1. Sam. 1. vers. 3. Exod. 18.1, & 2.
• * 1.129

  Luc. 1. vers. 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19.
• * 1.130

  1. Tim. 3. vers 2.
• * 1.131

  A shameful wresting of the holy scripture.
• * 1.132

  The true mea∣ning of S. Paul.
• * 1.133

  Chrysost. in 1. Tim. c. 3. hom. 10.
• * 1.134

  Behold how the fathers and scrip∣tures agree with priests marriage.
• * 1.135

  Hier. in cap. 1. ad Tit.
• * 1.136

  Chrysost. in 2. c ad Titum, hom. 2
• * 1.137

  Note well what is here said.
• * 1.138

  The probation conuinceth.
• * 1.139

  Answere, O Se∣minarie priestes, or els recant your doctrine.
• * 1.140

  Theoph. in hunc loc••m.
• * 1.141

  1. Cor. 9. v. 5.
• * 1.142

  The popish expo∣sition of this place, is ridicu∣lous.
• * 1.143

  Euseb. hist. lib. 3. secundum. Ruffi.
• * 1.144

  Euseb. lib. 3 hist. cap. 24. secundum Christophor.
• * 1.145

  Phil. cap. 4. v. 3
• * 1.146

  1. Tim. 5. v. 9.14
• * 1.147

  Greg. Nazianz. Orat. de funer. Pat. orat. 28.27.
• * 1.148

  Eusebius hist. lib. 6. ca. 31. Chrysost. in ora∣tione de Philog.
• * 1.149

  Socrates hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. Hist trip. lib. 1. cap. 10.
• * 1.150

  Hist. trip. lib. 6. cap. 14. Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 10.
• * 1.151

  Dist. 56 cap. O••••∣us.
• * 1.152

  Glossa ibidem.
• * 1.153

  Dist. 56. cap Ce∣nom••ncus.
• * 1.154

  Can. 6. Apostol.
• * 1.155

  Con. Ancyr. can. 10.
• * 1.156

  Anno. Dom. 308
• * 1.157

  Conc. Gangr. cap. 4. Sozome••. ib. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.158

  Conc. Constan∣••in 3. can. 13.
• * 1.159

  The councel confesseth that they hold against the Church of Rome.
• * 1.160

  Anno. Dom. 681
• * 1.161

  Note the eight proposition in the third buil∣ding.
• * 1.162

  1. Cor. 7. vers. 2
• * 1.163

  1. Cor. 7. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.164

  Hebr. 1••. vers. ••▪
• * 1.165

  Haymo in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Locum.
• * 1.166

  Note well thi•• illation▪
• * 1.167

  1. Cor. 7. vers. 25
• * 1.168

  Mat. 19. ver. 12
• * 1.169

  Theodoret. in 1▪ Timoth. 4.
• * 1.170

  Clem. Alexand. in paedagog. lib. 2. cap, 10.
• * 1.171

  ••. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3
• * 1.172

  Prohibition of marriage is the doctrine of An∣••••christ.
• * 1.173

  2. Thes. 2. ver 4.
• * 1.174

  Small account of the church of Rome.
• * 1.175

  Dist. 56. cap. Cenomanens.
• * 1.176

  Antoninus. p. 2. Tit. 11. ca. 2. §. 9
• * 1.177

  Priests were mar∣ried for the space of 400. yeares after Christ.
• * 1.178

  Anno dom. 385
• * 1.179

  Videtu dist. 8••. cap. proposuist. &c. plurimos.
• * 1.180

  Syritius in Epi∣stola ad Aphric. tom. 1. conc.
• * 1.181

  Pope Syritius found priests married when he came to the popedome.
• * 1.182

  ••. Tim. ••.1, 2, 3.
• * 1.183

  Behold here the ••lat doctrine of ••euilles.
• * 1.184

  The probation of the second ••art of the pro∣••osition.
• * 1.185

  Dist. 28. cap. de ••yracus. vrbis.
• * 1.186

  Panorm. de cleri∣••is coniugatis, ••ap. Cum olim.
• * 1.187

  Dist. 28. cap. de Syracus.
• * 1.188

  Dist. 28. cap. vit.
• * 1.189

  Dist. 31. ca pri••••.
• * 1.190

  Anno Dom 680
• * 1.191

  Lambert. in chron. an. 1074
• * 1.192

  Peruse the first proposition.
• * 1.193

  Sozo. lib. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.194

  Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8.
• * 1.195

  Hist. tripart. lib. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.196

  Sozomen. & So∣crates vbi supra.
• * 1.197

  Note well and keepe it minde.
• * 1.198

  See the seuenth proposition.
• * 1.199

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 4. c. cum in 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.200

  Glossa. dist. 84 c. Cum in praeter.
• * 1.201

  Pope Syritius the first man, that forbad marriage to priestes.
• * 1.202

  Glossa vbi supr.
• * 1.203

  See the first pro∣position, and conferre it with this.
• * 1.204

  Fumus de matr. §. 55.
• * 1.205

  Fumus de matr. §. 8 & lib. 6. de vo••o cap. vnico.
• * 1.206

  A••ton p. 2. tit. 11 cap 2. §. 9.
• * 1.207

  What is it, that the pope cannot doe?
• * 1.208

  Iosephus Angl. in 4. s. p. 2. q. de vo∣to, att. 6. diffic. 1.
• * 1.209

  O wicked church of Rome? most happy are they, who are made free from thy brutish thral∣dome.
• * 1.210

  Nauarrus de iu∣diciis notab. 3. p. 275.
• * 1.211

  Ioseph. Angles in 4. q. de voto, ar. 6 diffic. 2.
• * 1.212

  These buildings and distinctions well obserued, poperie will receiue a deadly wound.
• * 1.213

  This dilemma catcheth the Pope by the nose.
• * 1.214

  Nauar. in e••chir. cap. 22. §. 18.
• * 1.215

  Anton. de potest. papae p. 3. Tit. 22. cap. 3. §. 1.
• * 1.216

  1. Tim. 5. v. 11.2••
• * 1.217

  Epiphan. h••res. 61 libro. 〈…〉〈…〉 pag. 167.
• * 1.218

  Cypri. libr. 1 e∣pist. 11. ad Pom∣pon.
• * 1.219

  August. in Psal. 75. prope finem tom. 8.
• * 1.220

  〈◊〉〈◊〉, damnation is not for marri∣age, but for the breach of pro∣mise.
• * 1.221

  Augustin. de ••e no viduitatis. cap 9. & cap. 1•• tom. 4·
• * 1.222

  Caelest. 3. extra. qui clerici & vo∣uent. lib. 4. Tit. 6 cap. 6.
• * 1.223

  Scotus in. 4. S. dist. 38. quaest. 2 in mod.
• * 1.224

  The first faith i•• baptisme, what i•• was, and how it was broken.
• * 1.225

  The confirmati∣on of the answ••••
• * 1.226

  Rom. 7.7.
• * 1.227

  Rom. 6. vers. 23
• * 1.228

  Deut. 27.26.
• * 1.229

  Galat. 3.10.
• * 1.230

  Iames 2. verse 10
• * 1.231

  1. Cor. 10. ver. 31
• * 1.232

  Leuit. 11.44.
• * 1.233

  1. Cor. 7. vers 32.
• * 1.234

  ••••ngle life, how it is better.
• * 1.235

  C. 32. q. 4. c▪ 7.
• * 1.236

  Nazianz. in o••at. ••un••b. pro patre orat. 28. tom. 2.
• * 1.237

  In epitaph. Gor∣goniae orat. 25.
• * 1.238

  Chrys. in 1. Tim. homil. 10.
• * 1.239

  August. in quaest. mix. q. 12. in fine.
• * 1.240

  Clemens Alex. lib. 3. stromat.
• * 1.241

  Niceph. lib. 11. cap. 19.
• * 1.242

  Amber. in cor. cap. 7. prope ••••∣dem.
• * 1.243

  1. Cor. 7. vers. 5.
• * 1.244

  Leuit. 10. v. 9.
• * 1.245

  1. Kin. 21. v. 3.4.
• * 1.246

  Leu. 15. per 〈◊〉〈◊〉 See cap. 21 22.
• * 1.247

  Exod. 30. v. 7.8.
• * 1.248

  1. Cor. 7. v. 15
• * 1.249

  Conc. Agath cap. ••8.
• * 1.250

  Anno Dom 439
• * 1.251

  Dist. 27. cap. 2. diaconus.
• * 1.252

  This is a whip to all poperie.
• * 1.253

  Conc. Tolet. 1. Can. 17.
• * 1.254

  Psal. 76 v. 11. Esaia••, 19. v. ••••.
• * 1.255

  Iudg. 11. v. 31.39 Mat 14. v. 7 10. Act. ••3. v. ••1.
• * 1.256

  Bernard de modo bene viuendi, Serm 62. to. 1. p. 1699.
• * 1.257

  Isidor. ap. Grat. C. 22. q. 4. in m••lis.
• * 1.258

  Beda apud Grat. C. 22. q. 4, si aliquid.
• * 1.259

  Ambr. lib. de ••••∣fic. cap. 12.
• * 1.260

  Aug. apud Gr•••• C. 22. q. 4. c••••. magna.
• * 1.261

  Soter in epist ad episcop. Italiae to. 1. conc. C. 22. q. 4. ••i ali∣quid.
• * 1.262

  The replie.
• * 1.263

  The answer
• * 1.264

  Gregor. hom. 24. in euange.
• * 1.265

  1. Cor. 7. vers. 2. Nazianz. in lau∣dem. Gorgo. 2.
• * 1.266

  Aquin. 22. q· 64. ••r. 5.
• * 1.267

  Deut. 6. ver. 16.
• * 1.268

  1. Cor. 7. ver. 2.
• * 1.269

  Quarto principa∣liter.
• * 1.270

  1. Cor. 7. v. 25. Mat. 19, v. 11.12
• * 1.271

  C. 26, q 2, sor••▪
• * 1.272

  Psa. 127. verse 1. Hebr. 11. ve. 29. Num. 22. vers. 28 Dan. 3. verse 25 4. Reg. 6. verse 6. Act. 12. ver. 7, 10
• * 1.273

  Caiet. in quod∣libet cont. Luth▪
• * 1.274

  Vignerius is of the verie same o∣pinion, De differentii•• voti. §. 5. ver. 14.
• * 1.275

  Antonin. cap. 3. Tit. 1. cap. 21. §. ••
• * 1.276

  Clemens Alex∣and. lib. •• stromat
• * 1.277

  1. Cor. 7. v. 23▪
• * 1.278

  Victor. demur. sect. 2. relect. 7. p. 280.
• * 1.279

  Galat. 5. verse 1.
• * 1.280

  Aquin. 22. q. 11.
• * 1.281

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.282

  Rom. 14. ver. 23.
• * 1.283

  Gregor. Nazian. orat. 25. in lau∣dem Gorgonia tom. 2.
• * 1.284

  Clemens. Alex∣ander. lib. 3. stro∣mat.
• * 1.285

  The disparitie ought to be no∣ted well.
• * 1.286

  Mat. 19. vers. 11.12. 1. Cor. 7. verse 2.
• * 1.287

  Mat. 19 verse 11
• * 1.288

  1. Cor. 7 verse. 7. Ambros. exhort. ad virgines. tom 1. p. 106.
• * 1.289

  Numer. 30. per∣totum.
• * 1.290

  Mat. 19. verse. 11.
• * 1.291

  2. Cor. 12. v. 7, 8, 9,
• * 1.292

  The papistes are become Pelagi∣ans.
• * 1.293

  August. cont. Iulian: Pelagian. lib. 5. ca. 7. tom. 7.
• * 1.294

  1. Cor. 7. v. 9.
• * 1.295

  1. Cor. 7. verse 12
• * 1.296

  Aquinas 22. q. 88 ar. 2. corp. Lomb. in 4. dist. 38. Anton. p. 2. tit. 11 c. 1. §. 1. Fumus, de vo••o, §. 1. Syluest. de voto primo. §. 1.
• * 1.297

  Vigner. de virtu•• inst. c. 5. § 5. v. ••4. Ant. & Fum. v••i supr.
• * 1.298

  1. Cor. 7. v. ••. Mat. 19. v. 1••
• * 1.299

  1. Cor. 7. v. 8.9.
• * 1.300

  Viguer. vbi supr.
• * 1.301

  Anno Dom. 1074.
• * 1.302

  Lambert. Sch••••∣nab Chron.
• * 1.303

  Anno. Dom. 1074.
• * 1.304

  Polidorus. lib. 5▪ cap. 4. in fide.
• * 1.305

  Panormita••. de clerie. co••••ugati••. cap. cum Olim.
• * 1.306

  Anno. Dom. 1300
• * 1.307

  Platina in Boni∣fac. 8, in med.
• * 1.308

  Leu. 25. vers. 10. & ••
• * 1.309

  An, Dom. 1500
• * 1.310

  Polidor. lib. ••. cap. 1.
• * 1.311

  Conc. 1. Nicen. ••an. 11.
• * 1.312

  Conc. 2. Arelat can. 10. conc. Ancyr. can. 2.
• * 1.313

  Mat. 16.19.
• * 1.314

  D. Hierom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cap 16. Matt.
• * 1.315

  Luc. 5. Mat. 8. Mat. 1.44. Leuit▪ 13. per totum.
• * 1.316

  Luc. 5.21.
• * 1.317

  Mut. 18. v. 18. Ioan. 20. vers. 22.23.
• * 1.318

  Hugo in. 16. Mat
• * 1.319

  Durand. in. 4. s. d. 18. q. 2.
• * 1.320

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 9. vers. 2.8
• * 1.321

  L••t this point be well marked.
• * 1.322

  Mat 9. vers. ••.
• * 1.323

  Chrysost. in ca. 9. Mat. hom 30. tom. 2. p. 275.
• * 1.324

  The pope is worse then the diuell.
• * 1.325

  Ambros. lib. 5. in ••ucam. cap. 5. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.326

  ••il•••• can ••. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.327

  1. Iohn. 4.15. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.328

  1. Cor. 5. vers. 1· 2. Cor. 2. vers. 10
• * 1.329

  2. Cor. 2. ve. 10.
• * 1.330

  2. Cor. 2. vers. 6, 7, 8.
• * 1.331

  Syluest. de indul∣gent. §. 1.
• * 1.332

  Penance satisfac∣tion and cano∣nical discipline is al one to the old writers.
• * 1.333

  Concill. 1. later. can. 62.
• * 1.334

  Coloss. 1.24.
• * 1.335

  Rom. ••.1••▪
• * 1.336

  Io. de Combis libr. 5. Tholog. ver. cap. 11.
• * 1.337

  Apocalip. 6. v. 10 11.
• * 1.338

  1. Cor. 5. v. 7. 1. Ioan. 2. Heb. 10. v. 14. Osee, 13.4. Esai. 43.25.53.5. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5.
• * 1.339

  Anselm. in 2. cap. Colost.
• * 1.340

  Act. 9. v. ••.
• * 1.341

  Anselm. vbi sup. S. Ambrose ex∣poundeth this text in the selfe same maner.
• * 1.342

  1. Cor 9. v. 17. Heb 10. v. 12.14 1. Pet. 3. ve. 18. 2. Tim. 3. v. 11.12 Rom. 8. v. 17.18. 1. Pet. 2. v. 21.
• * 1.343

  Luc. 2. v. 3••.
• * 1.344

  Rom. 5. v. 12.
• * 1.345

  verse 18.
• * 1.346

  Rom. 3. v. 1••. Gal. 3. v. 22.
• * 1.347

  Psal 143. v. 2.
• * 1.348

  Ambro. in Psal. 118. circa med.
• * 1.349

  Aug. in Psal. 34. conc. 2. tom. 8.
• * 1.350

  Aug. de Genes. ad literam, libr. 10. c. ••8. tom. 3.
• * 1.351

  Aug. cont. Iul. Pelag. libr. 5. c. 9. tom. 7.
• * 1.352

  Aquina p. 3 q. 27 ar. 2. in. corpore
• * 1.353

  Bernard. epist. 174. ad Canon. Ludg.
• * 1.354

  Mat. 1.21. 1. Tim. 4.10.
• * 1.355

  Luc. 1.46.
• * 1.356

  Bernard. vbi sup.
• * 1.357

  Aug. de Nat. & Grat. c. 36. tom▪ ••
• * 1.358

  Aug. in q. nou. test. q. 73. tom. 4.
• * 1.359

  Basil. apud Aqu. p. 3. q. 27. ar. 4. ad 2.
• * 1.360

  Aquin. 3. p. q. 27▪ ar. 4. ad 3.
• * 1.361

  Chrysost. hom••. 20. in Ioan. 10.
• * 1.362

  ••aulo superius
• * 1.363

  Chrys. hom. 45. in mat▪ to, 2.
• * 1.364

  Hier. ad Algas. q. 8. tom. 4. in fine
• * 1.365

  August. tract. 10 in Ioan tom. 9.
• * 1.366

  August. de sanc, virgin. cap. 3 tom. 6.
• * 1.367

  Chrysos. hom. 20 •• Ioan. tom. 3.
• * 1.368

  2 Reg. 12. v 13. ••. Reg. 4. v. 10.11, 12, 1••.
• * 1.369

  Numer. 14. v. 20.23.
• * 1.370

  Rom. 8. vers. 1.
• * 1.371

  Deut. ••2.4.
• * 1.372

  Ezech. 18. v. 22•• God absolueth in baptisme A culpa & paena▪ say the papists al
• * 1.373

  August. serm. 14.1· de tempore to. 10.
• * 1.374

  ••hrysost serm. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 poeni•• & con∣••••ss. to.▪ 5. p. 907.
• * 1.375

  Prou. 13.24.
• * 1.376

  Tob. 11. v. 14.
• * 1.377

  Ierem. 31.18.
• * 1.378

  Hebr. 12. vers. 6.
• * 1.379

  Apoc. 3. vers. 19.
• * 1.380

  Psal. 9 4. v. 12.
• * 1.381

  1. Cor. 11.31.
• * 1.382

  Ioh. 8.11.
• * 1.383

  2. Cor. 8.13, 14
• * 1.384

  Act. 8.19, 20.
• * 1.385

  1. Cor. 9.11.
• * 1.386

  Chrysost. sup. hunc loc. hom. 17. in fine.
• * 1.387

  1. Cor. 12.25, 26 27.
• * 1.388

  Rom. 3.24. c. 5.1.
• * 1.389

  Ioh. 1.10.
• * 1.390

  Aug. de ciuit. ••bi. 7. cap. 7.
• * 1.391

  Paganisme the originall of pur∣gatorie.
• * 1.392

  Anno. Dom. 250
• * 1.393

  Aug. de ciuit. Dei libr. 21. cap. 17.
• * 1.394

  Lodouic. in com∣ment. de ciuit. Origens purga∣torie.
• * 1.395

  Popish purgato∣rie hath no con∣stant ground.
• * 1.396

  Zachar. cap. 9.11
• * 1.397

  Hier. in 9. cap. Zach.
• * 1.398

  Psal. 65. v. 12.
• * 1.399

  Hier. in psal. 65. ver. 12.
• * 1.400

  Aug. in Psal. 65 Prope finem.
• * 1.401

  Psal. 106. v. 13.14
• * 1.402

  Aug. hic▪
• * 1.403

  Hier. in Psal 106.
• * 1.404

  Malac. 3. v. 3.
• * 1.405

  Hier. in. 3. cap. Malach.
• * 1.406

  Math. 12. v. ••2.
• * 1.407

  Mat. 3. v. 29.
• * 1.408

  Math. 12. v. 31. Chrys. hom. 42. in Mat.
• * 1.409

  Mat. 5. v. 26.
• * 1.410

  Aug. de q. Dulci∣til. q. 1 in fine. tom. 4.
• * 1.411

  Mat. 1. v. 25.
• * 1.412

  2. Kin. 6. v. 23.
• * 1.413

  Mat. 2••. v. 20.
• * 1.414

  Psal. 122. v. 2
• * 1.415

  Psal. 109. v. 1.
• * 1.416

  1. Cor. 3. v. 12.
• * 1.417

  Vide istos patres in hunc locum.
• * 1.418

  Gregor. li••. 4 dialog. cap. 39.
• * 1.419

  Roff. contra Lu∣ther. ar. 18.
• * 1.420

  This third illa∣tion is prooued in my Motiues,
• * 1.421

  1. Cor. 3. v. 13.
• * 1.422

  Aug. in Euchirid. cap. 68. tom. 3.
• * 1.423

  Popish purgatory is built vpon rot∣ten foundations.
• * 1.424

  Bellar. in lib. 1. de purg. c. 4. p, 1387
• * 1.425

  1. Cor. 15▪ 29
• * 1.426

  Epiphanius co••t. Cerinth. haer. 28. p. 37
• * 1.427

  The Iesuite pre∣ferreth his owne iudgement be∣fore al writers without al ti•••• and reason.
• * 1.428

  Philip. 2.10.
• * 1.429

  Rom. 14. vers 10, 11.
• * 1.430

  Luke. 8.28.
• * 1.431

  Apoc. 5. vers. 13.
• * 1.432

  Psal. 144. v. 10.
• * 1.433

  Psalm. 18. ver. 1.
• * 1.434

  Psalm. 148.
• * 1.435

  Dan. 3 secund. ••at.
• * 1.436

  Ap••cal, 21. v. 27.
• * 1.437

  Apoc ••.14.
• * 1.438

  2. Cor. 5.21.
• * 1.439

  Act. 15. vers. ••
• * 1.440

  Ioan. 15. vers. 3. Apoc. 14, 13.
• * 1.441

  Act. 2.24.
• * 1.442

  Bellarm, de purg. lib. 1. c. 4. col. 1396.
• * 1.443

  Bellarminus, de ••entit. sanct. lib. 1 cap. 20.
• * 1.444

  Rom. 4.25. Act. 2.24.
• * 1.445

  Ps. l. 10. vers. 10.
• * 1.446

  Ionas. 4.••.
• * 1.447

  Act. 20.10.
• * 1.448

  Act. 20.24.
• * 1.449

  Mat. 2.20.
• * 1.450

  Ioan. 10.11.
• * 1.451

  Aug. in euch••. c. 69. tom. 3.
• * 1.452

  Aug. de ciuit. lib. ••••. ••. 26.
• * 1.453

  Aug de fide & operibus cap. 16. tom. 4.
• * 1.454

  Cyprian. lib. 4. Epis 5. Ambros de obitu Valent. ••
• * 1.455

  August. in ser. 17. de verbis apos. c. 1
• * 1.456

  Ambros. de obitu Valent. & Theod.
• * 1.457

  Aug. lib. 9. conl. c. 13. tom. 1.
• * 1.458

  August. in e••chi••. c. 110.
• * 1.459

  Marke this point 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.460

  Aug. de ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 24.
• * 1.461

  1. Ioh. 5.16.
• * 1.462

  Aug. de verb. apostol. serm. 17. cap. ••.
• * 1.463

  Caiet. in ie••tac. octauo. quaest. quinta.
• * 1.464

  Aug. cont. Faust. libr. 22. cap. 27 tom. 6.
• * 1.465

  Ambr. de parad. cap. 8.
• * 1.466

  Genes. 48.16▪
• * 1.467

  The grandfather Iacob made Io∣sephs children his by adoption.
• * 1.468

  Esa. 4.1.
• * 1.469

  Hier. in 4. cap. Esaiae.
• * 1.470

  Iere. 7.14. Esaiae, 44. v. 5
• * 1.471

  Gen. 48. v. 16.
• * 1.472

  Gen. 31. v. 1••.1••
• * 1.473

  Gen. 28. v. 14.18
• * 1.474

  Iob. 5. v. 1.
• * 1.475

  Iob. 42.2. Gen. 17.1. Num. 16.31. Deut. 4.••4. Iac. 1.17.
• * 1.476

  I••••. 1. verse 5. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 1. Psal. 49. v. 15
• * 1.477

  Luc. 11. v. ••. Math. 7. v. 7. Mar. 11. v. 24. Ioan. 16. v. 23. 1. Ioan. 5. v. 14.
• * 1.478

  Iob. 42. v. 78.
• * 1.479

  Iob. 42. v. 7.
• * 1.480

  Gene. 18.32. Psal. 10••. v. 23. Acts 27. v. 34.
• * 1.481

  1. Tim. 2. v. 1. Iac. 5. v. ••6.
• * 1.482

  Ambr. in cap. ad Rom. p. 177.
• * 1.483

  Mat. 11. v. 28.
• * 1.484

  ••ere. 15. v. 1.
• * 1.485

  Moses & Samuel not then in hea∣uen by popish doctrine.
• * 1.486

  Ezech. 14. v. 14
• * 1.487

  Ioan. 1. v. ••••. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 1. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5
• * 1.488

  Heb. 5. v. 9 10 Heb. 10. v. 12 14 Act 4. v. 12. Ioan. 16. v. 23 Rom. 5. v 1 2. Cor. 5. v. ••1.
• * 1.489

  Gen. 32. v. 9.11. Deut. 9. v. 27. Psal. 132. ver. 10.4. Reg. 19. v. 34.
• * 1.490

  Exod. 32. v. 13. Deut. 26. v. 3.
• * 1.491

  3. Reg 8. ver. 23.••4.
• * 1.492

  Gen. 26. v. 3.
• * 1.493

  ••. P••r. ••1. v. 5••
• * 1.494

  Esai••. 42. v. ••.
• * 1.495

  Rom. 10. v. 1••▪
• * 1.496

  August. de ver•• religione, cap. 55. tom. 1.
• * 1.497

  August. de c••uit. lib. 22. cap. 106 tum. 50
• * 1.498

  Euseb hist. lib. 4. cap. 15.
• * 1.499

  Mat. 4.10. Apoc. 22.8, 9.
• * 1.500

  Mat. 19.28. Ioh. 15.14, 15.
• * 1.501

  ••••char. 1.12.
• * 1.502

  Baruc. 3.4.
• * 1.503

  2. Mach. 15.12.
• * 1.504

  Apoc. 5.8.
• * 1.505

  Apoc. 5.9, 10. Apoc. 8.4. Iren. libr. 4. ca. 33
• * 1.506

  Mat. 4. verse 10. Apoc. 19.10.
• * 1.507

  August. de ciuit. lib. 10. cap. 1.
• * 1.508

  Ludou. in com. de ciuit.
• * 1.509

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 vbi sup.
• * 1.510

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lud. Viu. ••bi sup.
• * 1.511

  Matth. 4.10.
• * 1.512

  Apoc. 19.10.
• * 1.513

  Deut. 6.13.
• * 1.514

  Luke. 16. vers. 1•• Rom. 16. verse. 8.
• * 1.515

  1. Thes. 1. vers. ••
• * 1.516

  Apoc. 17. v. 1
• * 1.517

  Apoc. 5.
• * 1.518

  Apoc. 1. vers. ••.
• * 1.519

  ••poc. 19. vers. 10
• * 1.520

  ••poc. 22. ver. 8.9.
• * 1.521

  ••ugust. de vera ••••ligione cap. vit. ••••m. 1.
• * 1.522

  Apoc. 3.9. Heb. 11.21. Gen. 18.2. Num. 22.31. Iosue. 5.14. Dan. 2.46.
• * 1.523

  Iudith. 14.7.
• * 1.524

  4. Reg. 4.37.
• * 1.525

  4 Reg. 2. vers. 1
• * 1.526

  Apoc. 3. vers. ••▪
• * 1.527

  Heb. 11. vers. 2
• * 1.528

  Gregor epist. lib. 9. cap. 9.
• * 1.529

  ••••gust. q. 162. ••p. genes. tom. 4.
• * 1.530

  ••opish paltrie ••doration is fond 〈◊〉〈◊〉 imagined.
• * 1.531

  ••ofue. 5. vers. 14. ••ap. 6. vers. 2.
• * 1.532

  ••an. 2.46.
• * 1.533

  ••sal. 89. vers. 5.
• * 1.534

  Epiphan. haer. 79. cont. Collyti.
• * 1.535

  ••opish adoration confuted and confounded.
• * 1.536

  Anno. Dom. 370.
• * 1.537

  Ambr. in cap. 1. ad Rom. prope finem tom. 5.
• * 1.538

  August. de vera religione. cap. 55. ••om. 1.
• * 1.539

  Hest. 3.5. cap. 13.15.
• * 1.540

  Psal. 99. vers. 5.
• * 1.541

  August. & Hier. in hunc locum.
• * 1.542

  August. vbi supr. in Psal. 98.
• * 1.543

  Esai▪ cap. 66. v. 1
• * 1.544

  The Romish ma∣ner of inuocation
• * 1.545

  The multitude of Romish pa∣trons.
• * 1.546

  The saintes are made mediators of redemption and saluation.
• * 1.547

  In Rom. breni••••. in festo Tho. B••cket.
• * 1.548

  In hymno Tho. Cant.
• * 1.549

  Oratio ad angel. prop••ium.
• * 1.550

  Oratio ad S. Paul▪ doct. gent.
• * 1.551

  Oratio ad S. I••c.
• * 1.552

  In translat. S. Mart.
• * 1.553

  In antiph. B. Virg.
• * 1.554

  In natiu B. Virg.
• * 1.555

  In concept. B. Virg.
• * 1.556

  In annuntiar, B. Virg.
• * 1.557

  In visitat. B. Virg.
• * 1.558

  Deuotissim•• ora∣tio ad B. Vir Ma∣riam. fol. 118.
• * 1.559

  Ibid. fol. 111.
• * 1.560

  Note wel what is here saide▪
• * 1.561

  Aqu. p. 1. q. 45. ••. 5.
• * 1.562

  Aq. p. 1. q. 7. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.563

  3. Reg. 14.5.
• * 1.564

  4. Reg. 5.26.
• * 1.565

  Act. 5.3, 9.
• * 1.566

  Reg. 4.27.
• * 1.567

  Act. 1.24.
• * 1.568

  Act. 15.8.
• * 1.569

  ••. Par. 6. ver. 30. Rom▪ 8.27.
• * 1.570

  Ier. 21.••0.
• * 1.571

  Aqu. p. 1. q. 52. ar. 2. Corp.
• * 1.572

  Damasc. l. 2. cap. ••
• * 1.573

  Hebr. 1.14.
• * 1.574

  Gen. 28.12.
• * 1.575

  Da. 10.13, 20, 2••
• * 1.576

  Luc. 2••.36.
• * 1.577

  Luc. 15.10.
• * 1.578

  Esai. 63.16.
• * 1.579

  Rom. 15. Colos. 4. Iac. 5. 1. Tim. 2. Iob. 42. Gen. 20. vers. 7.
• * 1.580

  Polanchus de modo a••d. con∣fess.
• * 1.581

  Esa. 42.8.
• * 1.582

  Luc. 16.25.
• * 1.583

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. •• Iust. q. 60. ad or∣thodox.
• * 1.584

  August. de cura pro mort. cap. 14 15. tom. 4.
• * 1.585

  Cypr. lib. 2. ep. 3. Epist. 63. apud Pa.
• * 1.586

  Hier. in 9. c••. Ier. Aug. de vnit. ec∣cles. cap. 3.
• * 1.587

  Tertull. adu. pra••. in initio.
• * 1.588

  Egesippus apud Euseb. hist. lib. 3 cap. 32.
• * 1.589

  ••usebius hist. lib. 3. cap. vlt.
• * 1.590

  Can. de locis lib. ••. c. 5.
• * 1.591

  Caieta. in Gen. 5. •• br. Mos.
• * 1.592

  Victor. de Sa∣cramen.
• * 1.593

  Nau. in enchir.
• * 1.594

  August. epist. ad Hier. 19.
• * 1.595

  Roffen. Ac. 32. aduers. Luth August. cont. Crensc▪ lib. 2. cap. 32.
• * 1.596

  Iust. q. 60. Iren. lib. 5▪ cap. vlt. Orig. hom. in Le••uit. Chrys. in. 1. Cor. hom. 39. &c.
• * 1.597

  The margent can••not containe th•• quotations of al••
• * 1.598

  Bernard. in serm. 3. de omni∣bus sanctis
• * 1.599

  Serm. 4. vbi sup••
• * 1.600

  The old fathers shew themselues to be men 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not Gods.
• * 1.601

  The heresie of Pope Iohn.
• * 1.602

  Euery truth must be tried by the scripture.
• * 1.603

  230. yeares after Christ.
• * 1.604

  Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 1
• * 1.605

  Irenae. lib. 5. c. 1. in fine.
• * 1.606

  Irenae. lib. 3. c. 33
• * 1.607

  Concil. Constan∣tinop. 6. Can 32
• * 1.608

  Carranza in an∣not. 6. conc. Con∣stant.
• * 1.609

  Anno Dom. 233
• * 1.610

  Orig hom. 16. in cap. 13. Iosue.
• * 1.611

  Idem ••n cantic. hom. 3. circa med.
• * 1.612

  Mat. 11. v. 28. Psal. 49. v. 15. Ioan. 14. v. 13.14 Hebr. 7.25.
• * 1.613

  Gelasiu•• dist. 15. cap. sanct. Ro.
• * 1.614

  Origen. hom. 3. in diue••sos.
• * 1.615

  The maner of praying of saints for vs.
• * 1.616

  Ruffin in apolog. pro Orig. in fine.
• * 1.617

  Anno Dom. 250
• * 1.618

  Cypr. Epist. 57. lib. 1. ep. 1.
• * 1.619

  Anno Dom. 350
• * 1.620

  Na••ianz. orat. 1. ••n Iulian, in initio, tom. 2.
• * 1.621

  Nazianz. orat. 2. in Pascha, in ipso ••••ne.
• * 1.622

  Vincent. Lyrin. aduers. haeres.
• * 1.623

  The Romish reli∣gion not catho∣licke.
• * 1.624

  Anno. Dom. 400.
• * 1.625

  Chrysost. hom. 16 ex var. in Mat. lo∣cis, tom. 2. col. 1181.
• * 1.626

  Chrysost. hom. 5. in cap. 1. Mat. tom. 2. col. 56.
• * 1.627

  I haue these three masse•• i•• print.
• * 1.628

  Anno Dom. 420
• * 1.629

  August. epist. 119 ad Ianu••••. in fine tom, 2.
• * 1.630

  Saint Austen for feare dissem∣bled many things
• * 1.631

  This is a graue saying worthy to be written in golden letters▪
• * 1.632

  Psal. 115.15.
• * 1.633

  Psal. 33.19.
• * 1.634

  Apoc. 14.13.
• * 1.635

  Psal. 15.9.
• * 1.636

  Gen. 50.2, 7, 8.
• * 1.637

  Epiphan. in vitis prophetarum.
• * 1.638

  Ecclesiast. cap. ••6. vers. 12.
• * 1.639

  August. de ciuit. libr. 1. cap. 13.
• * 1.640

  The pilgrimage of Christ Iesus. Mat. 2.1, 13, 23 Mat. 3.13. Mat. 4.1, 5.
• * 1.641

  Ioan. 2.2, 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4. vers. 13. Luc. 4.31. Ioan. 6.1, 2.
• * 1.642

  Mar. 5.1, 13, 14, 17.
• * 1.643

  Ioan. 5.1. Mat. 13. vers. 2. Mat. 10.5. Luc. 10.1.
• * 1.644

  Mat. 15. verse 39. Mat 16. verse 13 Mar. 9. verse 3. ••. Pet. 1.18. Luc. 17.12. Mar. 6.7. Ioan. 12.2. Ioan. 10.22, 23. Ioan. 11.43, 44. Lu. 19.29.30.45 Matth 26.6, 18. Ioan. 18. verse 1. Mat. 26.36. Luc. 22. ver. 44, 47, 48, 54. Mat. 26.57. Mar, 15. v. 18, 15 Ioan. 19. vers. 1, 6 16, 30.
• * 1.645

  Act. 9. ver. 1, 2, 20, 22. Galat. 1.17, 18
• * 1.646

  Act. 9. ver. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Act. 21. ve. 15, 27 Act. 23. vers. 24.
• * 1.647

  Act. 11. vers. 26. Act. 11. vers. 28, 29, 30 Act. 13. ver. 4, 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.648

  Act. 13. ve. 13.14 Act. 14. verse 5, 6
• * 1.649

  Act. 15.36, 41. Act. 16. v. 6, 5, 11 1••
• * 1.650

  Act. 24. vers. 24. Act. 25. vers. 9, 1•• Act 26. vers. 1. Act. 28. v. 16, 19
• * 1.651

  Mat 2.1, 2. ••. Reg. 10.1, 2. ••. Par. 9.1, 2, 3. Mat. 12. vers. 42. ••uc. 11.31.
• * 1.652

  In all superstiti∣ous adoration, one imitateth an other without time or reason.
• * 1.653

  Platina in 8. Bo∣nifac.
• * 1.654

  Ludou. in comm. de ciuit.
• * 1.655

  Coloss. 2.23.
• * 1.656

  Canus de locis, lib. 5. ca. 5. p 17••▪
• * 1.657

  Gen▪ 50 v. 25. Exod. 13. v. 19.
• * 1.658

  Heb. 11. v. 22.
• * 1.659

  1. Sam. 1. v. 3. Ioan. 12. v. 20. Act. 8. vers. 27. Act 20. v. 16.
• * 1.660

  Deut. 16. v. 1.10.13.
• * 1.661

  Pilgrimage ap∣pointed by God, is to be approo∣ued.
• * 1.662

  Matth. 5.17.
• * 1.663

  Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap 9.
• * 1.664

  Pilgrimage is no satisfaction for sinne.
• * 1.665

  Ioan. 4. v 23.
• * 1.666

  Bernard. Epist. 5. ad Adam mo∣nach. tom. 2.
• * 1.667

  Ambr. serm, 91. Aug. de ciuit. De•• lib. 22. c. 8.
• * 1.668

  4. Reg. 13. v. 20.
• * 1.669

  4. Reg. 18. v. 4.
• * 1.670

  Iustin. q. 2••▪
• * 1.671

  Gen. 2. v. 17.
• * 1.672

  Gen. 3. v. 19.
• * 1.673

  August. de ciuit. dei, lib. 13. cap. 3.
• * 1.674

  Bernard serm. ad milit. cap. 11. de caena domini ser. 10. Chrysos. hom. 16. in Gen.
• * 1.675

  Chryso. hom. 12. ad Rom.
• * 1.676

  Ecclesiast. 7. v. 31
• * 1.677

  Aug. de lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.678

  2. Tim. 4. v. ••.
• * 1.679

  August. de ciuit. libr▪ 13. cap. 13.
• * 1.680

  Luc. 10. v. 30.
• * 1.681

  Aug. ap. Ludolp.
• * 1.682

  Ludolph. de vita Christi.
• * 1.683

  The double euill of ignorance an•• concupiscence.
• * 1.684

  Aug. apud Lu••••••
• * 1.685

  2. Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.686

  1. Cor. 12.••.
• * 1.687

  Philip. 2.13.
• * 1.688

  Con•• Ara••. can. 7.
• * 1.689

  Ioan. 155.
• * 1.690

  Ethi••. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.691

  ••eg••e••. de vo•• ••••••tate human••, cap. 3. ••. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••.
• * 1.692

  Bernard. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.693

  The formaliti•• of free-will.
• * 1.694

  Heb. 11.•• Rom. 1••.2.
• * 1.695

  Na••arr. i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Caietan ib••••
• * 1.696

  1. Cor. 10.••••. Colo••. 3.
• * 1.697

  August. contr. Iu∣••ian. lib. 4. cap. 3. ••om. 7. p. 705.
• * 1.698

  August. contr. 〈…〉〈…〉. 4. cap. 〈…〉〈…〉 p••ope 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.699

  All in hell haue not the same to ments.
• * 1.700

  Genes. 4.7.
• * 1.701

  Chrysost. in 4. cap. Ge. hom. 1
• * 1.702

  Conc. 〈…〉〈…〉 19.
• * 1.703

  Can. 7. vbi sup.
• * 1.704

  Aug. epist. 1••••.
• * 1.705

  Luc. 17.10.
• * 1.706

  Gen. 6.••.
• * 1.707

  ••••ilip. 2.13.
• * 1.708

  Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.709

  Cor. 2.14.
• * 1.710

  ••om. 8.7.
• * 1.711

  ••an. 6.44.
• * 1.712

  ••an. 15.5.
• * 1.713

  The attribute of Gods iustice.
• * 1.714

  The attribute of Gods mercie.
• * 1.715

  The attribute of Gods wisedome.
• * 1.716

  The attribute of Gods loue.
• * 1.717

  Ioan. 3.16.
• * 1.718

  Rom 3.23, 24.
• * 1.719

  Rom. 5.18, 19.
• * 1.720

  Act. 4.11.
• * 1.721

  1. Io. 2.1, 2.
• * 1.722

  Gal. 3.13.
• * 1.723

  Col. 1.14.
• * 1.724

  Heb. 1.2, 3.
• * 1.725

  2. Cor. 5.21
• * 1.726

  Apoc. 7.14.
• * 1.727

  ••. Io. 1.8.
• * 1.728

  ••sa. 43.55. ••sa. 53.5.
• * 1.729

  August. serm. 141 de temp. tom. 10.
• * 1.730

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 3.5.
• * 1.731

  Rom. 2.23, 24.
• * 1.732

  Rom. 4.24. Ioan. 3.16.
• * 1.733

  Eph. 1.••, ••. Cor. 10.31.
• * 1.734

  Esa. 43.25. Esa. 48.11.
• * 1.735

  Prou. 16.••.
• * 1.736

  Conc. Trid. se••••. 6. can. 7.
• * 1.737

  Aquinas 12. q. 111. ar. 1. ad pri∣mum.
• * 1.738

  Vulgata editio.
• * 1.739

  Coloss. 1.12.
• * 1.740

  Their owne lin∣guist is again•••• them.
• * 1.741

  The 1. argument.
• * 1.742

  The 2. argument.
• * 1.743

  Rom. 3. v. 24.
• * 1.744

  The 3. argument.
• * 1.745

  Rom. 5. v. 1.
• * 1.746

  The 4. argument Phil. 3. v. 9.
• * 1.747

  The 5 argument.
• * 1.748

  2. Cor. 5. v. 21.
• * 1.749

  The 6. argument.
• * 1.750

  Rom. 10. v. 3.4.
• * 1.751

  The true mea∣ning of this sen∣tence, sole faith doth iustifie.
• * 1.752

  ••om. 4. v. ••.••.
• * 1.753

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. v. 3.
• * 1.754

  Rom. 3. v. 28.
• * 1.755

  Ambros. in 3. cap. ad Rom. paulo ante finem. cap. 4. cap. 9. ad Rom, ••
• * 1.756

  Chrysost. hom. 1•• ad Rom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 med.
• * 1.757

  Chrysost. hom. 5. ad Ephes,
• * 1.758

  Hilarius in Ma••••▪ Can. 8.
• * 1.759

  Basiliu•• de hu•••• tom. 1.
• * 1.760

  Orig. ad Rom. cap. 3. non proc. a fine.
• * 1.761

  The first reason. Rom. 8.18.
• * 1.762

  A friuolous di∣stinction of the Papists.
• * 1.763

  The second reso•• Rom. 7.25.
• * 1.764

  Aug. li. 1. retract. cap. 22. p. 23.
• * 1.765

  Rom. 6. v. 23.
• * 1.766

  Rom. 7.23. The first conf••••••mation.
• * 1.767

  Rom. 7.19. The second con∣firmation. Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.768

  Rom. 7.14. The third confir∣mation.
• * 1.769

  Rom. 7.••0.
• * 1.770

  The fourth con∣firmation.
• * 1.771

  Aug. contr. Iuli∣••n. lib. 5. cap. 3. tom. 7.
• * 1.772

  Aug. con••. Iulian. lib. 6. ca. 8. tom. 7
• * 1.773

  August. epist. 29. ad Hier. tom. 2.
• * 1.774

  3. Reg. 8. Psalm. 142. 1. Ioan. 1. Matth. 6,
• * 1.775

  Concupiscence is sinne in the regenerate.
• * 1.776

  August. de nupt. & concupisc. lib. 1 cap. 25. tom. 7.
• * 1.777

  August. de nupt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 concupisc. lib. 1 cap. 29. tom 7.
• * 1.778

  Ecclesiast. cap. 18 30. Exod. 20.17.
• * 1.779

  Marke well this illation: for it striketh the pa∣pists dead.
• * 1.780

  Rom. 7.18, ••••, 20.
• * 1.781

  Lombard. lib. 3. ••nt. dist. 19.
• * 1.782

  Now ye papists, either recant your doctrine, or else crie fire and ••agot for your maister.
• * 1.783

  Peruse the 8. conclusion in the answere to the last replie of the fift obiection.
• * 1.784

  Rom. 8.1.
• * 1.785

  Forma dat esse ••••i.
• * 1.786

  Ratio formalis originalis peccati
• * 1.787

  August. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 1. cap. 25.
• * 1.788

  Amb. libr. 10. epist. 84. tom. 3.
• * 1.789

  1. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.790

  Note here a∣••ainst the papists, ••hat the faithfull ••oth are sinners ••nd iust at once.
• * 1.791

  ••q. 12. q. 74. ar. ••. contr. & ad 3.
• * 1.792

  Galat. 3.10.
• * 1.793

  Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.794

  Iac. 2.10.
• * 1.795

  1. Cor. 10.31.
• * 1.796

  Rom. 3.8. 2. Cor. 5.21.
• * 1.797

  Mat. 1••.36.
• * 1.798

  Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.799

  Amb. de Par. ca. •• Aug. contr. ••aust. 22. cap. 27.
• * 1.800

  In the seuenth chapter▪ and fif•• conclusion of purgatorie.
• * 1.801

  Vide Ioseph. An∣gles in 2. s. d. 37. diffic. 6.
• * 1.802

  Mat. 10. v▪ 42.
• * 1.803

  Mat. 19. v. 29. Luc. 18. v. 29.
• * 1.804

  Mat. 25. v. 34.35 Rom. 2.6.
• * 1.805

  Psal. 17. v. 20.
• * 1.806

  Hebr. 11. v. 26.
• * 1.807

  Ioan. de Combis in comp. theol. veritatis.
• * 1.808

  2. Ioan. 3. v. 7.
• * 1.809

  August. de fid. & ope. ca. 14. tom. 4
• * 1.810

  Iac. 2.21, 24.
• * 1.811

  Rom. 4.3, 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.812

  Heb. 1••▪ ••. 17.
• * 1.813

  Gen. 22. v. 1.
• * 1.814

  Gen. 22. v. 2.
• * 1.815

  Gen. 17. v. 19.
• * 1.816

  Gen. 22. v. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7▪ 8, 9, 10.
• * 1.817

  Iac. 1. v. 25.
• * 1.818

  Rom. 7. v. 20.
• * 1.819

  August. in Psal. 118. conc▪ 2. in fine.
• * 1.820

  Iac. 1. v. 12.
• * 1.821

  Luc. 1. v. 5.
• * 1.822

  Rom. 4. v. 25. Math. 19. v. 17. Luc. 10. v. ••9.
• * 1.823

  Ioan. 1. verse 8. Rom. 3. v. 10.12.
• * 1.824

  Psal. 143. v. 2.
• * 1.825

  August. lib. 9. confess. cap. 13.
• * 1.826

  2. Reg. 12. v. 7. Mat. 26. v. 74. Act. 9. v. 1.2.
• * 1.827

  Rom. 4 v. 7••.
• * 1.828

  Gen. 6. v. 9. 4. Reg. 20. v. 3.
• * 1.829

  1. Cor. 2. v. 6.
• * 1.830

  2. Par. 15. v. 17. Psal. 118.
• * 1.831

  Psal. 7.8▪
• * 1.832

  Psal. 7. v. 8. Psal. 142. v. 2. Psal. 118. v. 120.
• * 1.833

  Dionysius, Car∣thus. in Psal. 7.
• * 1.834

  Philip. 3. v. 12.
• * 1.835

  Bernard. de ve••b•• Esaiae, serm. 5.
• * 1.836

  1. Cor. 1.30. Coloss. 2.10.
• * 1.837

  Bern. vbi sup••. ••.
• * 1.838

  1. Ioan. 3. v. 9.
• * 1.839

  1. Cor. 1. v. 30. Colos. 2. v. 10.
• * 1.840

  Rom. 6. v. 14. 1. Tim. 1. v. 9.
• * 1.841

  Rom. 1.8.1. Rom. 8.13. Ioan. 14.15. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 3, 4.5 Rom. 6.12.
• * 1.842

  Bernard. de ad∣uent. Dom. serm▪ 6. tom. 1.
• * 1.843

  Loe, concupis∣cence in the re∣generate is pro∣perly sinne▪
• * 1.844

  Bernard. in vig••. nat▪ dom. serm. 1.
• * 1.845

  Bernard. de grat. & lib. arbi. pag. 1189.
• * 1.846

  Bernard. serm. 1. in annu••••ia••.
• * 1.847

  Poperie is stric∣ken dead.
• * 1.848

  ••. Pet. 1. ver••▪ 10.
• * 1.849

  Good worke•• yeelde morall certitude of our iustification.
• * 1.850

  Phil. 2. vers. 12.
• * 1.851

  Philip. 2.13. Ephes. 2▪ 8.
• * 1.852

  Bernard. serm. 1. in annuntiat▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mariae▪
• * 1.853

  ••phes. 4.24.
• * 1.854

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4.24.
• * 1.855

  Rom. 8.18. Bernard. serm. 1. in annu••. B.M.V.
• * 1.856

  The papists are c••••••ounded in their L. Abbot.
• * 1.857

  Theodor. orat. •• in Danielem.
• * 1.858

  ••••••nard. in Cant. ••.67.
• * 1.859

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 well, howe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fathers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be merite to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 workes.
• * 1.860

  ••••rnard. super 〈◊〉〈◊〉. serm. 68.
• * 1.861

  Aquin. 1••. q. ar. 1. in co••p.
• * 1.862

  Note well 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doctrine.
• * 1.863

  ••eritum largo ••••do.
• * 1.864

  ••urand. in 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d. 28. apud 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de iust. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.865

  ••pud Ios. Angl. •• 2. s. d. 27. ar. 2. ••••ffic. 5.
• * 1.866

  ••osephus Angles •• 2. s. dist. 27. ••. 2. diffic 4.
• * 1.867

  Chrysost. in lib. 2. de compunct. cord••••, tom. 5▪
• * 1.868

  The Bishops reasons confuted▪
• * 1.869

  Aquinas 12. q. 114. ar. 1.
• * 1.870

  Ecclesiast. cap. 1•• v▪ 15.
• * 1.871

  Luc. 1••▪ v 41. 1. Pet. 4. v. 8.
• * 1.872

  Mat. 5. v 1••. Luke 1.75. Ioan. 14. v. 15.
• * 1.873

  Ephes. 2. v. 10. 1. Thess. 4. v. 7. 1. Pet. ••. v. 24. Rom. 8. v. 1. Rom 6. v. 4. 1. Ioan. 2. v. 6▪
• * 1.874

  Ioan. 15. v. 10.
• * 1.875

  1. Ioan. 5. v. 2.3.
• * 1.876

  August. de fide & operib. cap. 14. tom. 4.
• * 1.877

  Rom. 8. v. 30. Rom. 10. v. 17.
• * 1.878

  Rom. 5. v. 1. 1. Cor. 1. v. 30. 2. Cor. 4.16. Gal. 6. v. 15. Mat. 7. v. 17.
• * 1.879

  Ephes. 2. v. 10.
• * 1.880

  Math. 25. v. 34.
• * 1.881

  Tit. 3. v. 5.6, 7, 8.
• * 1.882

  Anno Dom. 1080.
• * 1.883

  Anno Dom. 1545.
• * 1.884

  Math. 26. v. 27. Mar▪ 1••▪ v. 23.
• * 1.885

  1. Cor. 11. v. ••3.25.
• * 1.886

  Anno. dom. 1414
• * 1.887

  Origen. hom. 16. in numer. prope finem.
• * 1.888

  Hieron. in 3. cap. Sophon.
• * 1.889

  Cypr. lib. 1. epis. 2.
• * 1.890

  The Romish Church taketh from vs our chri∣st••••n right.
• * 1.891

  Chrysost. in ••. Corinth. hom. 1•• in mor.
• * 1.892

  Ignat. in epist ad Philadelp. prope 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.893

  ••ustinus mar••yr apolog. 2. pa. 76.
• * 1.894

  1. Cor. 11.23▪ 25.
• * 1.895

  August. q. 57. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leuit. tom. 4▪
• * 1.896

  Ambr. apud Th••∣odor. lib. 5. hist••••. cap. 17.
• * 1.897

  Gregor. lib. 4. dialogor. cap. 5••.
• * 1.898

  De consecr. dist. 2. cap. compe••.
• * 1.899

  Matth. 26. Mar. 14.
• * 1.900

  Ioseph. Angles in 4. s. q. de clau.
• * 1.901

  Bernard. serm. 3. in ramis palmar.
• * 1.902

  Haymo in 1. Co•• cap. 11.
• * 1.903

  Mar. 14.2••.
• * 1.904

  1. Cor. 11.26.
• * 1.905

  De consecr. dist. 2 cap. peracta.
• * 1.906

  De consecr. dist. 2 cap. cum omne.
• * 1.907

  Loe, to receiue the one onely kinde is against the gospel.
• * 1.908

  Aquin. p. 3. q. 80 ar. 12. in corpor••
• * 1.909

  Anno. Dom. 1275
• * 1.910

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••4.36.
• * 1.911

  ••••nel. Iansen. comment. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 loci.
• * 1.912

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.27.
• * 1.913

  Cor. 11.24.25.
• * 1.914

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.915

  Act. 20. vers. ••.
• * 1.916

  Iustinus martyr apolog. 2. in fi••
• * 1.917

  Irenaeus libr. 5. prope initium.
• * 1.918

  Cypr. in tract. de lapsis.
• * 1.919

  Euseb. hist. lib. •• cap. 34.
• * 1.920

  ••ustinus apolog. 2▪ ••ag. 76.
• * 1.921

  ••dem ibid. pa. 77.
• * 1.922

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. ad Rustic. ••••onach. tom. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 23.
• * 1.923

  ••eephorus con∣••esseth that hee ••eceiued the eu∣••harist. lib. 9. ca. 6
• * 1.924

  Durand. lib. 4. ca. ••4. in ration. ••iuinorum.
• * 1.925

  ••ee Durands ••ordes in the conclusion 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.926

  The Laical com∣munion vnperfit.
• * 1.927

  De consecr. dist. 2 cap. cum omne.
• * 1.928

  Nazianz. orat. in Gorg••. post med.
• * 1.929

  Tertull. lib. 2. ad vxorem.
• * 1.930

  Conc. Tolet. ••. can. 14. Conc. Caesaraug. can. 2.
• * 1.931

  Conc. Tolet. ••. can. 17.
• * 1.932

  Matt. 26.27. Luc 22.19. Ma••. 14.23.
• * 1.933

  1. Cor. 11.24, 25.
• * 1.934

  Act. 2.4••. Act. 20.7.
• * 1.935

  Can. 10. Apostol.
• * 1.936

  Popish priuate masse condemned euen by the apo∣stles.
• * 1.937

  De consecr. dist. •• cap. omnes.
• * 1.938

  Chrysost. hom. 3▪ ad Ephes.
• * 1.939

  Clemens in Epi∣stol 2.
• * 1.940

  Ambr. in 1. Cor. cap. 11.
• * 1.941

  Durand. in ration. lib. 4. cap. 53.
• * 1.942

  Aquinas p. 3. q. ••0. ar. 10. ad ••uintum.
• * 1.943

  Heb. 10. v. 10.
• * 1.944

  Heb. 10. v. 14▪
• * 1.945

  Heb. 10. v. 10.11, 12, 13.
• * 1.946

  Heb. 9. v. ••••.2••.
• * 1.947

  Heb. 9. v. 25.26▪
• * 1.948

  Note well this reason.
• * 1.949

  Ioan. 19.30.
• * 1.950

  Hebr. 10.18.
• * 1.951

  Hebr. 10.14.
• * 1.952

  Bellarmine de missa lib. 1. c. 2••▪
• * 1.953

  Heb. 6. v. 20. Gen 14.18. Heb. 10.••.
• * 1.954

  Gen. 43. v. 32.
• * 1.955

  ••sa••. 4. v. 1.
• * 1.956

  ••. Reg. 9.7.
• * 1.957

  Ier 52.31. & deinceps.
• * 1.958

  Iob▪ 42.11.
• * 1.959

  ••s. 53. v. 8.
• * 1.960

  Heb. 7.3
• * 1.961

  Exod. 29. v. 23.
• * 1.962

  Num. 28. v. 2.9▪ 12.
• * 1.963

  Euseb. apud Ruff. hist. libr. 1. cap 1.
• * 1.964

  Obserue this wel.
• * 1.965

  Hebr. 7.11
• * 1.966

  Ibid. verse 14.
• * 1.967

  Hebr. 10.14.
• * 1.968

  Hebr. 5.9, 10.
• * 1.969

  Gen. 14.1••.
• * 1.970

  Heb. 5.1.
• * 1.971

  Argumentum ad hominem.
• * 1.972

  Euery trueth is not expressed in ••he scripture.
• * 1.973

  Marke well, O pa¦pist, and thou not but be satisfi∣ed.
• * 1.974

  Ioan. 19. vers 30.
• * 1.975

  Cyprian. ad Cae∣cilium epist. 63.
• * 1.976

  The Papists are confounded by their owne alle∣gation.
• * 1.977

  The first corolla∣rie.
• * 1.978

  The second corollarie.
• * 1.979

  Arnobius in Psal. 109.
• * 1.980

  Theodoret in Psal. 109.
• * 1.981

  Loe, this holie and auncient Father, telleth the case plainely.
• * 1.982

  Euseb. Caesar. de demonstr. euan∣gel. lib. 5 cap. 3.
• * 1.983

  Ioseph. antiq. Iu•• lib. ••. cap. 10.
• * 1.984

  Aug. in q▪ ex v∣troque t••st. q. 109.
• * 1.985

  Tertull. aduersu•• Iudaeos prope initium.
• * 1.986

  Ambr. in 7. cap. ••d Hebr.
• * 1.987

  Canus de Ioel•• lib. 12. cap. 12. p. 415.
• * 1.988

  The Papists labor ••o establish their masse, in the ob∣lation of Melchi∣sedech.
• * 1.989

  Hebr. 5.1.
• * 1.990

  ••. Reg. ••3.1, 4. ••. Para. 26.16, 20 ••. Reg. 1.3.9, 13.
• * 1.991

  Psal 109.4.
• * 1.992

  Heb. 7.25. Act. 4.12. Ioh. 19. vers. 3••▪
• * 1.993

  Hebr. 5.9. cap. 6.20. cap. 7.11, 26, 27. cap. 9.26. cap▪ 10.14.
• * 1.994

  Hebr. 5.4.
• * 1.995

  The prince doth neither preach the word, nor minister the sa∣craments, but commaundeth the execution of them both.
• * 1.996

  3. Reg. 13. 2. Paral. 26. 1. Reg. 13.
• * 1.997

  Exod. 12.11.
• * 1.998

  Aug. de ciuit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 10. cap. 5.
• * 1.999

  Ibidem cap. 20.
• * 1.1000

  Contr. Faust. libr. 20. cap. 21. tom. ••
• * 1.1001

  Nazianz. orat. 21 tom. 2. p. 413.
• * 1.1002

  Areopagia. de ec∣cles. hierarch. c. 5.
• * 1.1003

  Chrysost. hom. 27. ad Hebr.
• * 1.1004

  Obserue this carefully.
• * 1.1005

  Basil. in missa p. 39
• * 1.1006

  Hebr. 1.3.
• * 1.1007

  Coloss. ••.••.
• * 1.1008

  Idem n••me•••• sacrifici••••▪
• * 1.1009

  De eucharist. lib. 1 ••. 3. col. 474.
• * 1.1010

  Opinio commu∣nis papistar. ex Aquin. p. 3. q. 78. Innocent. de of∣fic. missae. p. 3. c. 6
• * 1.1011

  ••os. Angl. de es∣••••nt. Euch. c. 4.
• * 1.1012

  Math. ••6. v. 26.
• * 1.1013

  Conc. Trid. sess. 13. cap. 1.
• * 1.1014

  Aquinas p. 3. ••▪ 75. ar. 7.
• * 1.1015

  Marke this rea∣son well.
• * 1.1016

  The first reason.
• * 1.1017

  Bellarm. de eu∣charist. lib. 3. c. 6.
• * 1.1018

  Aristot. lib. 3. Metaph. Text. 9.
• * 1.1019

  Aquinas p. 3. q. 76. ar. 4.
• * 1.1020

  The 2. reason.
• * 1.1021

  Aquinas p. 3. q. 76. ar. 5.
• * 1.1022

  August. epist. 57 ad Dardan.
• * 1.1023

  See the 3. Para∣graph in the end of the first rea∣son, and note it well.
• * 1.1024

  Guilielmus Oka∣mus in 4. s. q. 4. ad 4.
• * 1.1025

  The third reason.
• * 1.1026

  Matt. 28.9.
• * 1.1027

  Anno. Dom. 1215
• * 1.1028

  Bellarm. de Euchar. libr. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.1029

  The first proofe.
• * 1.1030

  Philip. ••. v. 6.7.
• * 1.1031

  1. Pet. 2. v. 21.22.
• * 1.1032

  2. Cor. 5. v. 21.
• * 1.1033

  Ioan. 4. v. 22.24.
• * 1.1034

  The Papists worship they know not what.
• * 1.1035

  I••an. 6. v. 56.
• * 1.1036

  Ephes. 3. v. 17.
• * 1.1037

  Act. 3. v. 21.
• * 1.1038

  1. Cor. 10. v. 16.17.
• * 1.1039

  1. Cor. 10. v. 3.4.
• * 1.1040

  De consec. dist. 2. Cap. vt quid.
• * 1.1041

  1. Cor. 10. v. 26.
• * 1.1042

  De consecr. dist. 2 cap. prima.
• * 1.1043

  August. contr. Faust. libr. ••0. cap. 11. tom. 6.
• * 1.1044

  August. in Psal. 46. circamed.
• * 1.1045

  Loe, Christs body cannot be cor∣••orally in two ••laces at once: ••nd so it cannot ••oth be in hea∣••en and on earth.
• * 1.1046

  The second proofe.
• * 1.1047

  Genes. 17, 10.
• * 1.1048

  ••bidem 1••.
• * 1.1049

  ••••idem 7▪
• * 1.1050

  Exod. 1••.1••.
• * 1.1051

  Matth. 26.17.
• * 1.1052

  Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19.
• * 1.1053

  ••
• * 1.1054

  Exod. 12.1••.
• * 1.1055

  1▪ Cor. 5.7.
• * 1.1056

  Ioan. 1.29.
• * 1.1057

  Apoc. 13.8.
• * 1.1058

  Hebr. 10.14.
• * 1.1059

  Luc. 22.15.
• * 1.1060

  1. Cor. 11.26.
• * 1.1061

  The third proof•• Luc. 22.18. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.1062

  1. Cor. 10.16, 17
• * 1.1063

  Marke 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.1064

  The fourth proofe.
• * 1.1065

  Christs bloud sa∣••ramentally, but ••ot naturally.
• * 1.1066

  Secundo princ••∣paliter.
• * 1.1067

  Hilar. de Trinit. libr. 8. p. 140.
• * 1.1068

  Iren. lib. 4. cap. 3••
• * 1.1069

  1. Corinth. 1••.
• * 1.1070

  1. Cor. 15.
• * 1.1071

  Chrysost. hom. 83 in Matth. tom. 2. Vide Hilar. can. 30. in Matt.
• * 1.1072

  Cyprian lib••. 2. epist. 3. circ. med▪
• * 1.1073

  A generall rule to expound all the Fathers.
• * 1.1074

  Tertull. aduers. Marcionem lib. 4 p. 306.
• * 1.1075

  Theodor. dialog. 2. p. 128.
• * 1.1076

  Whom will not this reason per∣swade?
• * 1.1077

  Aug. de doctrin. Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 16.
• * 1.1078

  August in euang▪ Ioan. tract. 27. tom. 9.
• * 1.1079

  August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. ca. 5.
• * 1.1080

  August. cont. Adimant. cap. 12. tom 6.
• * 1.1081

  August. in Psal. 3. in initio▪
• * 1.1082

  August. in Ioan. Tract. 59.
• * 1.1083

  Ibid. tract. 50.
• * 1.1084

  Math. 28. v. vlt.
• * 1.1085

  August. in Ioan. tract. 50. in fine.
• * 1.1086

  August. epist. 23.
• * 1.1087

  The papistes are confounded▪
• * 1.1088

  Ioan. 6. v. 63.
• * 1.1089

  Lombard. in 4. s. dist. 13.••••.
• * 1.1090

  Nono principali∣ter.
• * 1.1091

  Ambr. libr. 4. de sacram. cap. 4.
• * 1.1092

  De euchar. libr. 2▪ cap. 14.
• * 1.1093

  Argumentum ad hominem.
• * 1.1094

  Matth. 19 6.
• * 1.1095

  A rare preroga∣tiue of Iesuites.
• * 1.1096

  August. in Psa. 3••▪ conc. 1.
• * 1.1097

  August. in psal 33 conc. 2.
• * 1.1098

  Note well the word Quodam∣modo.
• * 1.1099

  Note wel what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 said.
• * 1.1100

  Aug. in psalm. 98. & habetur de consecr. dist. ••▪ lib. prim.
• * 1.1101

  Cypr. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Domini.
• * 1.1102

  Cypr. de coena Domini.
• * 1.1103

  Chrysost. in cap. 10. cor. 1. hom. 24. in initio.
• * 1.1104

  Chrysost. vbi sup.
• * 1.1105

  Rom. 6 9. 1. Cor. 15. verse 53, 42.
• * 1.1106

  Luc. 24.39.
• * 1.1107

  Ioan. 16.7.
• * 1.1108

  Matt. 26.11.
• * 1.1109

  August. ad Da••d. epist. 57.
• * 1.1110

  Act. 1.9, 11. Act. 3.21.
• * 1.1111

  Hebr. 2.1••. Hebr. 4.15. 1. Pet. 2.
• * 1.1112

  August. epist. ad Dardan. in fine.
• * 1.1113

  Act. 3.21. A true body can∣not be in many places at once.
• * 1.1114

  Chrysost. vbi sup.
• * 1.1115

  Chrysost. hom. 83. in Mat.
• * 1.1116

  Note well the answere to this obiection.
• * 1.1117

  Hilar. in 8. libr. de Trinit. p. 141.
• * 1.1118

  Concil. Trident. Sect. 13. cap. 1.
• * 1.1119

  Ioh. 6.56.
• * 1.1120

  Chrysost. hom 83 in Mat.
• * 1.1121

  Behold, how finely and eui∣dently. S. Chry∣sostome doth ex∣pound himselfe.
• * 1.1122

  Chrysost. in 2. ad Tim hom. 2. in fine.
• * 1.1123

  Chrysost. hom. 46. in Ioan.
• * 1.1124

  Bernard. in serm. de sancto Mar∣••ino.
• * 1.1125

  De consecr. dist. 2 cap. vt quid. in glossa.
• * 1.1126

  Luc. 22. v. 20.
• * 1.1127

  Exod. 12.11.
• * 1.1128

  Gen. 17.10.
• * 1.1129

  Gen. 41. v. 26, 27.
• * 1.1130

  Ioan. 15. v. 1. Ioan. 10. v. 9. Luc. 8.11. 1. Cor. 10. v. 17.10.
• * 1.1131

  Apoc. 5.5.
• * 1.1132

  Luc. 22. v. 20.
• * 1.1133

  Malac. 1. v. 11.
• * 1.1134

  ••sai. 64.6.
• * 1.1135

  Iren. li. 4. cap. ••••
• * 1.1136

  Theod. in 1. cap. Malach.
• * 1.1137

  Hier. in hu•••• locum.
• * 1.1138

  Psal. 142.2.
• * 1.1139

  Rom. 8.1.
• * 1.1140

  Apoc. 21. Apoc. 7.14.
• * 1.1141

  Isa. 1.18.
• * 1.1142

  August. confess. lib. 9. cap. 13.
• * 1.1143

  Rom. 8.1. Rom. 5.12. Cap. 4 verse 7. Tit. 1.5.
• * 1.1144

  Apoc. 7.14.
• * 1.1145

  ••. Timoth. 2.8.
• * 1.1146

  Matth. ••.17. Hebr. 20.1. Ioan. 19.30.
• * 1.1147

  How our sacra∣ments doe excel the old.
• * 1.1148

  Rom. 8.11. Ephes. 3.17.
• * 1.1149

  1. Cor. 11.37.
• * 1.1150

  Gen. 3.6.
• * 1.1151

  Rom. 13.13. Gal. 5.21.
• * 1.1152

  〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.1153

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.17.
• * 1.1154

  1. Cor. 11.28.
• * 1.1155

  1. Cor. 10.31.
• * 1.1156

  Ioan. 20.19. Matth. 28.2. Matth. 19.24, 25 26 August. epist. 3.
• * 1.1157

  Things vndo••ble by power diuine
• * 1.1158

  Tertio principa∣liter.
• * 1.1159

  Act. 12 7. Exod. 14.32. Act. 12.10.
• * 1.1160

  Vide Theoph. in hunc locum▪
• * 1.1161

  Luc. 2.23. exod. 13.2. num. 8.10
• * 1.1162

  Terull. libr. de carn. Christ in sin.
• * 1.1163

  Gal. 4.4.
• * 1.1164

  Hieron. libr. 2. adu. Pelag. prope initium.
• * 1.1165

  Vide Ezech. cap. 44.2.3.
• * 1.1166

  Origen. hom. 14. in Luc. prop. sin.
• * 1.1167

  Ambros. li. 2. cap. 2. in Lucam.
• * 1.1168

  Ierem. 1.••.
• * 1.1169

  Luc. 1.27.31. Matt. 1.23. Esai. 7.14.
• * 1.1170

  Pernel. de part. corp. libr. 1. cap. 7
• * 1.1171

  Aqu. 22. q. 152. ar. 1. ad 3.
• * 1.1172

  August. libr. 1. de ciuit. Dei cap. 18.
• * 1.1173

  Gregor. epist. ••••b. 7. cap. 63.
• * 1.1174

  Iustin. apolog. ••. prope ••••nem.
• * 1.1175

  Ambros. libr. 3. hexamer. cap. 5. tom. 4.
• * 1.1176

  Gregor. epist. libr. 7. cap. 63.
• * 1.1177

  Anno. Dom. 590
• * 1.1178

  Apud Euseb. lib. 2. cap. v••••.
• * 1.1179

  Sozomen. hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 36 Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 24. Niceph. lib ••. cap. 24.
• * 1.1180

  Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 18. in mor.
• * 1.1181

  Hier. in praefat. libr. 2. in epist. ad Galat.
• * 1.1182

  Basil. epist. ad cler. ••••••c••sar.
• * 1.1183

  Cypr. in orat. do∣minica pag. 316.
• * 1.1184

  What can be more plainely saide?
• * 1.1185

  August. in psal. 18 expos. 2. See S. Austen in psal 44 prope finem.
• * 1.1186

  The Papists are like to owsels, pa••ets, erowes and pies.
• * 1.1187

  •• Cor. 14. v. 16.
• * 1.1188

  Lactantius, lib. 5 cap. 20.
• * 1.1189

  Mans inuention esteemed as a thing diuine.
• * 1.1190

  Gregor. epist. lib. 7. cap. 63.
• * 1.1191

  Great alteration in popish seruice.
• * 1.1192

  Platina, in vita Sixti.
• * 1.1193

  Behold here the ragges of the masse.
• * 1.1194

  Sigebert. in ••hro▪
• * 1.1195

  Duran. in ration. ••iu. lib. 4. cap. 53.
• * 1.1196

  Marke this well.
• * 1.1197

  Note the Dilem∣ma.
• * 1.1198

  Durandus vbi sup••r.
• * 1.1199

  Our monkes kill themselues with sparing di••t.
• * 1.1200

  Duran. in ration. diuinor. cap. 53.
• * 1.1201

  O most wonder∣full edification▪
• * 1.1202

  ••••rand. vbi supr.
• * 1.1203

  De consecr. dist. 2 cap. triforme.
• * 1.1204

  ••alse and ••ond mysteries.
• * 1.1205

  The ceremoni•••• in the popish masse are muta∣ble.
• * 1.1206

  Durand. in••••tion▪ lib. 4. cap. 54.
• * 1.1207

  Behold the pop•••• humilitie, who must needes be fellow with Christ Iesus. Coloss. 1.18.
• * 1.1208

  Exod. 34.29. Exod. 24.12.
• * 1.1209

  Duran. in ration. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.1210

  All popish cere∣monies are fond lying signes.
• * 1.1211

  Ann. Dom. 840
• * 1.1212

  Platina in Sergio secundo. Carranz. pag. 33••
• * 1.1213

  Iustin. 2. imper. Constant. PP.
• * 1.1214

  Ann. Dom. 708
• * 1.1215

  Ar. Pontac. ••ur∣deg.
• * 1.1216

  Ann. Dom. 1089
• * 1.1217

  Polydor. lib. ••▪ cap. 9.
• * 1.1218

  Anno. dom. 1243
• * 1.1219

  Plati. in Inno••. 4.
• * 1.1220

  Sigebert. in chro. Polydor. libr. 6. cap. 7.
• * 1.1221

  Anno. Dom. 417
• * 1.1222

  Intollerable su∣perstition.
• * 1.1223

  Durand. libr. 4. cap. 1••.
• * 1.1224

  Fond superstiti∣ous obseruations
• * 1.1225

  Rubrica Trid. conc.
• * 1.1226

  33. q. 2. c. nupti••••.
• * 1.1227

  Act. ••.26.
• * 1.1228

  Durand. libr. 4. ••••p. 27.
• * 1.1229

  Ioan. 11.54.
• * 1.1230

  Durandus lib. 3. cap. 18.
• * 1.1231

  Red colours.
• * 1.1232

  Blacke colours.
• * 1.1233

  Greene colours.
• * 1.1234

  White colours.
• * 1.1235

  A point of impor∣tance.
• * 1.1236

  Durand. vbi sup. lib. 3. cap. 18.
• * 1.1237

  Durand. li. 7. ca. 7
• * 1.1238

  In libello insti∣••••••. sodalit. Iesu.
• * 1.1239

  Anno Dom. 772.
• * 1.1240

  ••••lyd••r. l••. 5. c. 2
• * 1.1241

  Matth. 18.18.
• * 1.1242

  1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 2. Thess. 3.14.
• * 1.1243

  Matth. 16▪ 18. Ioan. 20.23. Rom. 10.10, 1••
• * 1.1244

  Rom. 1.16.
• * 1.1245

  2. Cor. 2.1••▪
• * 1.1246

  2. Cor. 10. v. 6.
• * 1.1247

  Vid Hier. in Esaia. cap. 14.
• * 1.1248

  2. Esdr. 8. & 9.
• * 1.1249

  Nehem. 8. & 9. Luc. 18. v. 13. Leuit. 16.
• * 1.1250

  Psal. 50.3.4.
• * 1.1251

  Luc. 15.
• * 1.1252

  Nauar. in Enchir. cap. 21. n. 34.
• * 1.1253

  The text spea∣keth of all indif∣ferently.
• * 1.1254

  Nauar. cap. 1.••4. Ioan. Lud. viuald. de veritat. con∣trit. fol. 141. p. ••.
• * 1.1255

  Psal. ••8. Prou. 20. Caiet. in summu. pag. vlt.
• * 1.1256

  Mat. 3. v. 6.
• * 1.1257

  Acts. 19. v. 18.
• * 1.1258

  Hier. in 16. Mat.
• * 1.1259

  Mat. 14. Luk. 9. v. 7.22.
• * 1.1260

  Math. 3 v. 1.2, 3. Iordan was two floudes ioyned in one. Eucherius.
• * 1.1261

  Secundo princi∣paliter.
• * 1.1262

  Hysteron prote∣ron proper to the papistes.
• * 1.1263

  Act. 19. v. 1••.
• * 1.1264

  Vide Iosue cap. 7 v. 20.
• * 1.1265

  Mat. 10. v 3. 1. Tim. 1. v. 13.
• * 1.1266

  Quarto principa∣liter.
• * 1.1267

  The priests doe only declare sins to be bound or loosed.
• * 1.1268

  Math. 8. v. 4.
• * 1.1269

  Ioan. 11. v. 44.
• * 1.1270

  The leaper is cleansed, before he be sent to the priest.
• * 1.1271

  Leuit. 14. v. 22.
• * 1.1272

  Mat. 8. v. 4.
• * 1.1273

  Math. 8. v. 42.43 44, 4••.
• * 1.1274

  Iam. 5. v. 16. Ioan. 20. v. 22.23
• * 1.1275

  See the answere to the first obie∣ction.
• * 1.1276

  Hier. in Esaia••▪ c 14.
• * 1.1277

  Mat. 18. v. 18.
• * 1.1278

  The preaching of the word, bin∣deth and looseth our sinnes.
• * 1.1279

  In breu••ar. Triden. in ips. fest.
• * 1.1280

  Mat. 22. v. 39.
• * 1.1281

  Mat. 28.19. Luc. 10.3. Ioan. 16.2.3. Mat. 10.19.
• * 1.1282

  Torquet hoc papistas.
• * 1.1283

  Scotus in 4. fen••. dist. 17. q. 1.
• * 1.1284

  Scotus vbi supr.
• * 1.1285

  Vide Ioseph. Angles in 4. l. pag. prim.
• * 1.1286

  ••a••ar. & Couar.
• * 1.1287

  Caiet. ea. 20. in Ioann.
• * 1.1288

  Anno Dom. 1215
• * 1.1289

  Ioseph. Angl. in 4. sent. de con••••••▪
• * 1.1290

  Platina in vit•• Zeph••ri••••▪
• * 1.1291

  Cypr. de lapsi••.
• * 1.1292

  Tertull. de poenit,
• * 1.1293

  Confession was voluntary for 1215. yeeres af∣ter Christ.
• * 1.1294

  Primo principal
• * 1.1295

  Beatus Rhena∣nus in annot. ad libr. Tertull. de poenitent.
• * 1.1296

  This testimonie is worthy of consideration.
• * 1.1297

  Leuit. 16.21. ••. Esdr. 9.2.
• * 1.1298

  Secundo princi∣paliter.
• * 1.1299

  Rhenanus vbi supr.
• * 1.1300

  Behold the con∣fusion of popery, for better proofe cannot be had.
• * 1.1301

  Tertio. principal.
• * 1.1302

  The pure primi∣tiue church knew not auricular confession.
• * 1.1303

  Popish confessi∣on is vnpossible, euen by the grant of the Papists.
• * 1.1304

  Marke well for Christs sake.
• * 1.1305

  Who will not defie poperie that deepely conside∣reth these things?
• * 1.1306

  Fi•• on poperie, and God of his mercie conuert al papists to the trueth.
• * 1.1307

  Many among the papists dare not vtter their minds
• * 1.1308

  Tertio principa∣liter.
• * 1.1309

  Cypr. de lapsis, pag. 284.
• * 1.1310

  Primo principal.
• * 1.1311

  The story of Ne∣ctarius must be well marked.
• * 1.1312

  Nicep. li. 12. c. 2••
• * 1.1313

  The first proba∣tion.
• * 1.1314

  Bellarm. de poe∣nitent. lib. 3. c. 15
• * 1.1315

  Our Iesuite is driuen to vse pe∣titio principii.
• * 1.1316

  The second pro∣bation.
• * 1.1317

  Chrysost. hom. 2. ••n Psal. 50. tom. 1.
• * 1.1318

  Chrys. de Lazar. ••ac Din. hom. 4. ••om. 2. pag. 1359.
• * 1.1319

  What can more plainly be said, a∣gainst Romish confession?
• * 1.1320

  Chrysost in epis. ad Hebr. hom. 3••. tom. 4.
• * 1.1321

  No confession made to the priestes.
• * 1.1322

  Chrysost. de in∣compreh. dei nat. contra Anomaeos hom. 5. tom. 5.
• * 1.1323

  Confession to God, but not to man.
• * 1.1324

  Chrysost. de p••••∣nit. & confess. tom. 5. p. 905.
• * 1.1325

  Confession was once made to man, but after that taken away.
• * 1.1326

  The scope of the Iesuite must be marked.
• * 1.1327

  All confession is abandoned, none at all is excepted
• * 1.1328

  A man made free, is still in bondage with our Iesuite.
• * 1.1329

  The third proba∣tion.
• * 1.1330

  Histor. trip. lib. 9. cap. 35.
• * 1.1331

  Socrat. lib. 5. c. 19 Sozo. lib. 7. c. 16. Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 28.
• * 1.1332

  The fourth pro∣bation.
• * 1.1333

  Sozo. lib. 7. c. 16. Can. lib. 9. ca. 35.
• * 1.1334

  No place left to auricular confes∣sion.
• * 1.1335

  Secundo princi∣paliter.
• * 1.1336

  Tertio principa∣liter.
• * 1.1337

  Ann. Dom. 260
• * 1.1338

  Sozom. & Orig. vbi supra.
• * 1.1339

  Quarto principa∣liter.
• * 1.1340

  Socr••. lib. 5. c. 19.
• * 1.1341

  A deadly blow to the Iesuite.
• * 1.1342

  Qu••nto principa∣l••ter.
• * 1.1343

  Anno Dom. 394
• * 1.1344

  Nicephorus. Socrates, Sozomenus.
• * 1.1345

  Socrates, Sozo∣menus, Nicephorus, vbi supra.
• * 1.1346

  Note this against the papists▪
• * 1.1347

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.1348

  Nicephorus vbi supra.
• * 1.1349

  Socra. lib. 5. ca. ••••
• * 1.1350

  Ann. Dom. 254
• * 1.1351

  Bellarm. de poe∣nitent. lib. 3. ca. 14. col. 1667.
• * 1.1352

  Vide Epiphan. contr. Andianos, libr. 3. tom 1. pa. ••67. haer. 70.
• * 1.1353

  Ann. Dom. 327
• * 1.1354

  Socrat. lib. 1. ca. 6
• * 1.1355

  Niceph. li. 8. c. 1••.
• * 1.1356

  The Emperour commaundeth councels to be holden.
• * 1.1357

  Theodoret. lib. ••▪ cap. 7.
• * 1.1358

  Sozom. li. 1. c. 1••
• * 1.1359

  Niceph. lib. 8. ca. 14.
• * 1.1360

  The Bishop of Rome reputed as a common man.
• * 1.1361

  Ann. Dom. 389
• * 1.1362

  Socrat. li. 5. cap. 8
• * 1.1363

  Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 7.
• * 1.1364

  Sigeb. in chron. anno 386.
• * 1.1365

  Vide Niceph. lib. 12. ca. 10. Tripart. hist. lib. 9. c. 12.
• * 1.1366

  Ann. Dom. 433
• * 1.1367

  Euagrius li. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.1368

  Loe, the graue bishop Cyrillus made sute to the emperour, not to the pope, to haue a Councill called in his name.
• * 1.1369

  Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 34.
• * 1.1370

  Cassiodor. in tri∣part. hist. lib. 12. cap. 5.
• * 1.1371

  Sigebert. in an∣no 4••3.
• * 1.1372

  Euagr. lib. 1. ca. 9.
• * 1.1373

  Ann. Dom. 454
• * 1.1374

  Niceph. lib. 15. cap. 2.
• * 1.1375

  Sigebert. in an∣no 452.
• * 1.1376

  The pope reque∣sted, but the em∣perour comman∣ded the thing to be done.
• * 1.1377

  Sozom. lib. 1. ••••. 18.
• * 1.1378

  Loe, the emper•••• had the highest place, and the bi∣shops sate no•• downe till ha•• commanded them.
• * 1.1379

  Panormit. de e∣lect. cap. signifi∣casti, prope fin.
• * 1.1380

  Sigebert. in anno 1088.
• * 1.1381

  Ann. Dom. 607
• * 1.1382

  Ann. Dom. 607
• * 1.1383

  Constanrinus.
• * 1.1384

  Ann. Dom. 765
• * 1.1385

  Pope Iohn.
• * 1.1386

  Ann. Dom. 855
• * 1.1387

  Adrianus.
• * 1.1388

  Ann. Dom. 886
• * 1.1389

  Formosus.
• * 1.1390

  Ann. Dom. 892
• * 1.1391

  Stephanus.
• * 1.1392

  Ann. Dom. 898
• * 1.1393

  Pope Iohn.
• * 1.1394

  Ann. Dom. 900
• * 1.1395

  Sergius.
• * 1.1396

  Ann. Dom. 907
• * 1.1397

  Ioannes.
• * 1.1398

  Ann. Dom. 917
• * 1.1399

  Ioannes.
• * 1.1400

  Ann. Dom. 968
• * 1.1401

  Ioann••••.
• * 1.1402

  Ann. Dom. 970
• * 1.1403

  Benedictus.
• * 1.1404

  978.
• * 1.1405

  Bonifacius.
• * 1.1406

  Anno Dom. 980.
• * 1.1407

  Syluester.
• * 1.1408

  The pope in pon∣tificalib. forget∣teth the names of his churches.
• * 1.1409

  Anno. Dom 1007.
• * 1.1410

  Ann. Dom. 1032.
• * 1.1411

  Benedictus.
• * 1.1412

  Ann. Dom. 1042.
• * 1.1413

  Clemens.
• * 1.1414

  1058.
• * 1.1415

  Damasus.
• * 1.1416

  1060.
• * 1.1417

  Ann. Dom. 1072.
• * 1.1418

  Anastasius.
• * 1.1419

  Ann. Dom. 1162.
• * 1.1420

  Bonifacius 8.
• * 1.1421

  Anno. Dom. 1302.
• * 1.1422

  The first Sect.
• * 1.1423

  Ann. Dom. 527.
• * 1.1424

  The pope must needes be S. Pe∣ters successor.
• * 1.1425

  Ann. Dom. 1335.
• * 1.1426

  The second Sect.
• * 1.1427

  1084.
• * 1.1428

  The ab••ominati∣on of sectes in po∣perie.
• * 1.1429

  The third Sect.
• * 1.1430

  Ann. Dom. 1119.
• * 1.1431

  The fourth Sect.
• * 1.1432

  1170.
• * 1.1433

  The fift Sect.
• * 1.1434

  1198.
• * 1.1435

  The sixt Sect.
• * 1.1436

  1206.
• * 1.1437

  The seuenth sect.
• * 1.1438

  1371.
• * 1.1439

  The eight Sect.
• * 1.1440

  1540.
• * 1.1441

  The sect of our Romish Iesuites, is not yet three-B••••ore yeres old.